An efficient method for global parameter sensitivity analysis and its applications to the Australian community land surface model (CABLE)

2013 ◽  
Vol 182-183 ◽  
pp. 292-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingjie Lu ◽  
Ying-Ping Wang ◽  
Tilo Ziehn ◽  
Yongjiu Dai
2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 2555-2608 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. H. Sutanudjaja ◽  
L. P. H. van Beek ◽  
S. M. de Jong ◽  
F. C. van Geer ◽  
M. F. P. Bierkens

Abstract. Large-scale groundwater models involving aquifers and basins of multiple countries are still rare due to a lack of hydrogeological data which are usually only available in developed countries. In this study, we propose a novel approach to construct large-scale groundwater models by using global datasets that are readily available. As the test-bed, we use the combined Rhine-Meuse basin that contains groundwater head data used to verify the model output. We start by building a distributed land surface model (30 arc-second resolution) to estimate groundwater recharge and river discharge. Subsequently, a MODFLOW transient groundwater model is built and forced by the recharge and surface water levels calculated by the land surface model. Although the method that we used to couple the land surface and MODFLOW groundwater model is considered as an offline-coupling procedure (i.e. the simulations of both models were performed separately), results are promising. The simulated river discharges compare well to the observations. Moreover, based on our sensitivity analysis, in which we run several groundwater model scenarios with various hydrogeological parameter settings, we observe that the model can reproduce the observed groundwater head time series reasonably well. However, we note that there are still some limitations in the current approach, specifically because the current offline-coupling technique simplifies dynamic feedbacks between surface water levels and groundwater heads, and between soil moisture states and groundwater heads. Also the current sensitivity analysis ignores the uncertainty of the land surface model output. Despite these limitations, we argue that the results of the current model show a promise for large-scale groundwater modeling practices, including for data-poor environments and at the global scale.


2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 805-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Best ◽  
C. S. B. Grimmond

Abstract The First International Urban Land Surface Model Comparison was designed to identify three aspects of the urban surface–atmosphere interactions: 1) the dominant physical processes, 2) the level of complexity required to model these, and 3) the parameter requirements for such a model. Offline simulations from 32 land surface schemes, with varying complexity, contributed to the comparison. Model results were analyzed within a framework of physical classifications and over four stages. The results show that the following are important urban processes: i) multiple reflections of shortwave radiation within street canyons; ii) reduction in the amount of visible sky from within the canyon, which impacts the net longwave radiation; iii) the contrast in surface temperatures between building roofs and street canyons; and iv) evaporation from vegetation. Models that use an appropriate bulk albedo based on multiple solar reflections, represent building roof surfaces separately from street canyons and include a representation of vegetation demonstrate more skill, but require parameter information on the albedo, height of the buildings relative to the width of the streets (height to width ratio), the fraction of building roofs compared to street canyons from a plan view (plan area fraction), and the fraction of the surface that is vegetated. These results, while based on a single site and less than 18 months of data, have implications for the future design of urban land surface models, the data that need to be measured in urban observational campaigns, and what needs to be included in initiatives for regional and global parameter databases.


2012 ◽  
Vol 117 (G4) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Longhui Li ◽  
Ying-Ping Wang ◽  
Qiang Yu ◽  
Bernard Pak ◽  
Derek Eamus ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1119-1138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huqiang Zhang ◽  
Bernard Pak ◽  
Ying Ping Wang ◽  
Xinyao Zhou ◽  
Yongqiang Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract The terrestrial water cycle in the Australian Community Atmosphere Biosphere Land Exchange (CABLE) model has been evaluated across a range of temporal and spatial domains. A series of offline experiments were conducted using the forcing data from the second Global Soil Wetness Project (GSWP-2) for the period of 1986–95, but with its default parameter settings. Results were compared against GSWP-2 multimodel ensembles and a range of observationally driven datasets. CABLE-simulated global mean evapotranspiration (ET) and runoff agreed well with the GSWP-2 multimodel climatology and observations, and the spatial variations of ET and runoff across 150 large catchments were well captured. Nevertheless, at regional scales it underestimated ET in the tropics and had some significant runoff errors. The model sensitivity to a number of selected parameters is further examined. Results showed some significant model uncertainty caused by its sensitivity to soil wilting point as well as to the root water uptaking efficiency and canopy water storage parameters. The sensitivity was large in tropical rain forest and midlatitude forest regions, where the uncertainty caused by the model parameters was comparable to a large part of its difference against the GSWP-2 multimodel mean. Furthermore, the discrepancy among the CABLE perturbation experiments caused by its sensitivity to model parameters was equivalent to about 20%–40% of the intermodel difference among the GSWP-2 models, which was primarily caused by different model structure/processes. Although such results are model dependent, they suggest that soil/vegetation parameters could be another source of uncertainty in estimating global surface energy and water budgets.


2016 ◽  
Vol 121 (22) ◽  
pp. 13,218-13,235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel W. Chaney ◽  
Jonathan D. Herman ◽  
Michael B. Ek ◽  
Eric F. Wood

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document