Jean-Francois Mahfouf

USGS2006

Optimal interpolation analysis of leaf area index using MODIS data

A simple data analysis technique for vegetation leaf area index (LAI) using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data is presented. The objective is to generate LAI data that is appropriate for numerical weather prediction. A series of techniques and procedures which includes data quality control, time-series data smoothing, and simple data analysis is applied. The LAI analysis is an optimal combination of the MODIS observations and derived climatology, depending on their associated errors σ o and σ c . The “best estimate” LAI is derived from a simple three-point smoothing technique combined with a selection of maximum LAI (after data quality control) values to ensure a higher quality. The LAI climatology is a time smoothed mean value of the “best estimate” LAI during the years of 2002–2004. The observation error is obtained by comparing the MODIS observed LAI with the “best estimate” of the LAI, and the climatological error is obtained by comparing the “best estimate” of LAI with the climatological LAI value. The LAI analysis is the result of a weighting between these two errors. Demonstration of the method described in this paper is presented for the 15-km grid of Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC)'s regional version of the numerical weather prediction model. The final LAI analyses have a relatively smooth temporal evolution, which makes them more appropriate for environmental prediction than the original MODIS LAI observation data. They are also more realistic than the LAI data currently used operationally at the MSC which is based on land-cover databases.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗

USGS1997

Cabauw experimental results from the Project for Intercomparison of Land-Surface Parameterization Schemes

In the Project for Intercomparison of Land-Surface Parameterization Schemes phase 2a experiment, meteorological data for the year 1987 from Cabauw, the Netherlands, were used as inputs to 23 land-surface flux schemes designed for use in climate and weather models. Schemes were evaluated by comparing their outputs with long-term measurements of surface sensible heat fluxes into the atmosphere and the ground, and of upward longwave radiation and total net radiative fluxes, and also comparing them with latent heat fluxes derived from a surface energy balance. Tuning of schemes by use of the observed flux data was not permitted. On an annual basis, the predicted surface radiative temperature exhibits a range of 2 K across schemes, consistent with the range of about 10 W m -2 in predicted surface net radiation. Most modeled values of monthly net radiation differ from the observations by less than the estimated maximum monthly observational error (±10 W m -2 ). However, modeled radiative surface temperature appears to have a systematic positive bias in most schemes; this might be explained by an error in assumed emissivity and by models' neglect of canopy thermal heterogeneity. Annual means of sensible and latent heat fluxes, into which net radiation is partitioned, have ranges across schemes of 30 W m -2 and 25 W m -2 , respectively. Annual totals of evapotranspiration and runoff, into which the precipitation is partitioned, both have ranges of 315 mm. These ranges in annual heat and water fluxes were approximately halved upon exclusion of the three schemes that have no stomatal resistance under non-water-stressed conditions. Many schemes tend to underestimate latent heat flux and overestimate sensible heat flux in summer, with a reverse tendency in winter. For six schemes, root-mean-square deviations of predictions from monthly observations are less than the estimated upper bounds on observation errors (5 W m -2 for sensible heat flux and 10 W m -2 for latent heat flux). Actual runoff at the site is believed to be dominated by vertical drainage to groundwater, but several schemes produced significant amounts of runoff as overland flow or interflow. There is a range across schemes of 184 mm (40% of total pore volume) in the simulated annual mean root-zone soil moisture. Unfortunately, no measurements of soil moisture were available for model evaluation. A theoretical analysis suggested that differences in boundary conditions used in various schemes are not sufficient to explain the large variance in soil moisture. However, many of the extreme values of soil moisture could be explained in terms of the particulars of experimental setup or excessive evapotranspiration.

Journal of Climate↗