An Evaluation of NOAA Modeled and In Situ Soil Moisture Values and Variability across the Continental United States.

Estimates of soil moisture from two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) models are compared to in situ observations. The estimates are from a high-resolution atmospheric model with a land surface model [High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model] and a hydrologic model from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center (CPC). Both models produce wetter soils in dry regions and drier soils in wet regions, as compared to the in situ observations. These soil moisture differences occur at most soil depths but are larger at the deeper depths below the surface (100 cm). Comparisons of soil moisture variability are also assessed as a function of soil moisture regime. Both models have lower standard deviations as compared to the in situ observations for all soil moisture regimes. The HRRR model's soil moisture is better correlated with in situ observations for drier soils as compared to wetter soils—a trend that was not present in the CPC model comparisons. In terms of seasonality, soil moisture comparisons vary depending on the metric, time of year, and soil moisture regime. Therefore, consideration of both the seasonality and soil moisture regime is needed to accurately determine model biases. These NOAA soil moisture estimates are used for a variety of forecasting and societal applications, and understanding their differences provides important context for their applications and can lead to model improvements. Significance Statement: Soil moisture is an essential variable coupling the land surface to the atmosphere. Accurate estimates of soil moisture are important for forecasting near-surface temperature and moisture, predicting where clouds will form, and assessing drought and fire risks. There are multiple estimates of soil moisture available, and in this study, we compare soil moisture estimates from two different National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) models to in situ observations. These comparisons include both soil moisture amount and variability and are conducted at several soil depths, in different soil moisture regimes, and for different seasons and years. This comprehensive assessment allows for an accurate assessment of biases within these models that would be missed when conducting analyses more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]