The memory timescale that characterizes root‐zone soil moisture remains the dominant measure in seasonal forecasts of land‐climate interactions. This memory is a quasi‐deterministic timescale associated with the losses (e.g., evapotranspiration) from the soil column and is often interpreted as persistence in soil moisture states. Persistence, however, represents a distribution of time periods where soil moisture resides above or below some prescribed threshold and is therefore inherently probabilistic. Using multiple soil moisture data sets collected at high resolution (subhourly) across different biomes and climates, this paper explores the differences, underlying dynamics, and relative importance of memory and persistence timescales in root‐zone soil moisture. A first‐order Markov process, commonly used to interpret soil moisture fluctuations derived from climate simulations, is also used as a reference model. Persistence durations of soil moisture below the plant water‐stress level (chosen as the threshold), and the temporal spectrum of upcrossings and downcrossings of this threshold, are compared to the memory timescale and spectrum of the full time series, respectively. The results indicate that despite the differences between meteorological drivers, the spectrum of threshold‐crossings is similar across sites, and follows a unique relation with that of the full soil moisture series. The distribution of persistence times exhibits an approximate stretched exponential type and reflects a likelihood of exceeding the memory at all sites. However, the rainfall counterpart of these distributions shows that persistence of dry atmospheric periods is less likely at sites with long soil moisture memory. The cluster exponent, a measure of the density of threshold‐crossings in a time frame, reveals that the clustering tendency in rainfall events (on‐off switches) does not translate directly to clustering in soil moisture. This is particularly the case in climates where rainfall and evapotranspiration are out of phase, resulting in less ordered (more independent) persistence in soil moisture than in rainfall.

We describe the baseline model configuration and simulation characteristics of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)'s Land Model version 4.1 (LM4.1), which builds on component and coupled model developments over 2013–2019 for the coupled carbon‐chemistry‐climate Earth System Model Version 4.1 (ESM4.1) simulation as part of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Analysis of ESM4.1/LM4.1 is focused on biophysical and biogeochemical processes and interactions with climate. Key features include advanced vegetation dynamics and multi‐layer canopy energy and moisture exchanges, daily fire, land use representation, and dynamic atmospheric dust coupling. We compare LM4.1 performance in the GFDL Earth System Model (ESM) configuration ESM4.1 to the previous generation component LM3.0 in the ESM2G configuration. ESM4.1/LM4.1 provides significant improvement in the treatment of ecological processes from GFDL's previous generation models. However, ESM4.1/LM4.1 likely overestimates the influence of land use and land cover change on vegetation characteristics, particularly on pasturelands, as it overestimates the competitiveness of grasses versus trees in the tropics, and as a result, underestimates present‐day biomass and carbon uptake in comparison to observations.

The low-wavenumber regime of the spectrum of turbulence commensurate with Townsend’s “attached” eddies is investigated here for the near-neutral atmospheric surface layer (ASL) and the roughness sublayer (RSL) above vegetation canopies. The central thesis corroborates the significance of the imbalance between local production and dissipation of turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) and canopy shear in challenging the classical distance-from-the-wall scaling of canonical turbulent boundary layers. Using five experimental datasets (two vegetation canopy RSL flows, two ASL flows, and one open-channel experiment), this paper explores (i) the existence of a low-wavenumber k−1 scaling law in the (wind) velocity spectra or, equivalently, a logarithmic scaling ln(r) in the velocity structure functions; (ii) phenomenological aspects of these anisotropic scales as a departure from homogeneous and isotropic scales; and (iii) the collapse of experimental data when plotted with different similarity coordinates. The results show that the extent of the k−1 and/or ln(r) scaling for the longitudinal velocity is shorter in the RSL above canopies than in the ASL because of smaller scale separation in the former. Conversely, these scaling laws are absent in the vertical velocity spectra except at large distances from the wall. The analysis reveals that the statistics of the velocity differences Δu and Δw approach a Gaussian-like behavior at large scales and that these eddies are responsible for momentum/energy production corroborated by large positive (negative) excursions in Δu accompanied by negative (positive) ones in Δw. A length scale based on TKE dissipation collapses the velocity structure functions at different heights better than the inertial length scale.

Similarity and scaling arguments underlying the existence of a logarithmic wind profile in the atmospheric surface layer (ASL) rest on the restrictive assumptions of negligible Coriolis effects (no wind turning in the ASL) and vertically‐uniform pressure gradients (barotropic atmospheric boundary layer, ABL). This paper alleviates these asymptotic arguments to provide a realistic representation of the ASL where the common occurrence of baroclinicity (height‐dependent pressure gradients) and wind turning, traditionally treated as outer‐layer attributes, take part in modulating the ASL. The approximation of a constant‐stress ASL is first replaced by a refined model for the Reynolds stress derived from the mean momentum equations to incorporate the cross‐isobaric angle (directional shear) and a dimensionless baroclinicity parameter (geostrophic shear). A model for the wind profile is then obtained from first‐order closure principles, correcting the log‐law with an additive term that is linear in height and accounts for the combined effects of wind turning and baroclinicity. Both the stress and wind models agree well with a suite of large‐eddy simulations in the barotropic and baroclinic ABL. The findings provide a methodology for the extrapolation of near‐surface winds to some 200 m in the near‐neutral ABL for wind energy applications, the validation of the surface cross‐isobaric angle in weather and climate models, and the interpretation of wind turning in field measurements and numerical experiments of the Ekman boundary layer.