Land transpiration-evaporation partitioning errors responsible for modeled summertime warm bias in the central United States
Earth system models (ESMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experiment exhibit a well-known summertime warm bias in mid-latitude land regions – most notably in the central contiguous United States (CUS). The dominant source of this bias is still under debate. Using vali...
Saved in:
Published in | Nature communications Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 336 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
17.01.2022
Nature Publishing Group Nature Portfolio |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Earth system models (ESMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experiment exhibit a well-known summertime warm bias in mid-latitude land regions – most notably in the central contiguous United States (CUS). The dominant source of this bias is still under debate. Using validated datasets and both coupled and off-line modeling, we find that the CUS summertime warm bias is driven by the incorrect partitioning of evapotranspiration (ET) into its canopy transpiration and soil evaporation components. Specifically, CMIP6 ESMs do not effectively use available rootzone soil moisture for summertime transpiration and instead rely excessively on shallow soil and canopy-intercepted water storage to supply ET. As such, expected summertime precipitation deficits in CUS induce a negative ET bias into CMIP6 ESMs and a corresponding positive temperature bias via local land-atmosphere coupling. This tendency potentially biases CMIP6 projections of regional water stress and summertime air temperature variability under elevated CO
2
conditions.
Summertime warm bias in the central United States persists in Earth System Models. This bias is dominated by land physics related to transpiration and evaporation partitioning. Improved land physics can constrain projected climate uncertainty. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 2041-1723 2041-1723 |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41467-021-27938-6 |