Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Drop Size Distributions on the Relationship between Liquid Water Content and Radar Reflectivity in Radiation Fogs
Next Article in Special Issue
Variations of Energy Fluxes and Ecosystem Evapotranspiration in a Young Secondary Dry Dipterocarp Forest in Western Thailand
Previous Article in Journal
Occurrence and Potential Sources of Quinones Associated with PM2.5 in Guadalajara, Mexico
Previous Article in Special Issue
Parameterization of Evapotranspiration Estimation for Two Typical East Asian Crops
Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of the Common Land Model (CoLM) from the Perspective of Water and Energy Budget Simulation: Towards Inclusion in CMIP6

by 1, 1,2,*, 1,2,3,4, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, 1,2 and 1,2
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Joint Center for Global Change Studies, Beijing 100875, China
Key Laboratory of Tibetan Environment Changes and Land Surface Processes, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2017, 8(8), 141;
Received: 9 June 2017 / Revised: 26 July 2017 / Accepted: 27 July 2017 / Published: 31 July 2017
Land surface models (LSMs) are important tools for simulating energy, water and momentum transfer across the land–atmosphere interface. Many LSMs have been developed over the past 50 years, including the Common Land Model (CoLM), a LSM that has primarily been developed and maintained by Chinese researchers. CoLM has been adopted by several Chinese Earth System Models (GCMs) that will participate in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). In this study, we evaluate the performance of CoLM with respect to simulating the water and energy budgets. We compare simulations using the latest version of CoLM (CoLM2014), the previous version of CoLM (CoLM2005) that was used in the Beijing Normal University Earth System Model (BNU-GCM) for CMIP5, and the Community Land Model version 4.5 (CLM4.5) against global diagnostic data and observations. Our results demonstrate that CLM4.5 outperforms CoLM2005 and CoLM2014 in simulating runoff (R), although all three models overestimate runoff in northern Europe and underestimate runoff in North America and East Asia. Simulations of runoff and snow depth (SNDP) are substantially improved in CoLM2014 relative to CoLM2005, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. The simulated global energy budget is also substantially improved in CoLM2014 relative to CoLM2005. Simulations of sensible heat (SH) based on CoLM2014 compare favorably to those based on CLM4.5, while root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) in net surface radiation indicate that CoLM2014 (RMSE = 16.02 W m−2) outperforms both CoLM2005 (17.41 W m−2) and CLM4.5 (23.73 W m−2). Comparisons at regional scales show that all three models perform poorly in the Amazon region but perform relatively well over the central United States, Siberia and the Tibetan Plateau. Overall, CoLM2014 is improved relative to CoLM2005, and is comparable to CLM4.5 with respect to many aspects of the energy and water budgets. Our evaluation confirms CoLM2014 is suitable for inclusion in Chinese GCMs, which will increase the diversity of LSMs considered during CMIP6. View Full-Text
Keywords: land surface models; Common Land Model (CoLM); water; energy; CMIP6 land surface models; Common Land Model (CoLM); water; energy; CMIP6
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, C.; Lu, H.; Yang, K.; Wright, J.S.; Yu, L.; Chen, Y.; Huang, X.; Xu, S. Evaluation of the Common Land Model (CoLM) from the Perspective of Water and Energy Budget Simulation: Towards Inclusion in CMIP6. Atmosphere 2017, 8, 141.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map

Back to TopTop