UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Processing and quality control procedures of turbulent flux measurements during the Vancouver EPiCC experiment Crawford, Ben; Christen, Andreas; Ketler, Rick Feb 29, 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Vancouver_EPiCC_Tech_Report_1.pdf [ 25.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0103593.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0103593-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0103593-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0103593-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0103593-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0103593-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0103593-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0103593-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0103593.ris

Full Text

Environmental Prediction in Canadian Cities - EPiCC EPiCC Technical Report No. 1 Ben Crawford, Andreas Christen,  Rick KetlerProcessing and Quality Control Procedures of Turbulent Flux Measurements during the Vancouver EPiCC ExperimentThe research network ?EPiCC? was supported by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS)Cite this report as: Crawford B., Christen A., Ketler R. (2013): ?Processing and quality control procedures of turbulent ux measurements during the Vancouver EPiCC experiment?. EPiCC Technical Report No. 1, Technical Report of the Department of Geography, University of Britisch Columbia. http://circle.ubc.ca/, 28pp, Version 1.1Cover Photo: Flux Tower ?Vancouver Oakridge? in Summer 2009. Photo by A. Christen? 2013 The University of British Columbia	 ?	 ?	 ?Environmental	 ?Prediction	 ?in	 ?Canadian	 ?Cities	 ?CFCAS	 ?Network	 ?2006-??2010	 ?	 ?	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?	 ?No.	 ?1	 ?	 ?	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?procedures	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?flux	 ?measurements	 ?during	 ?the	 ?Vancouver	 ?EPiCC	 ?experiment	 ?	 ?	 ?Ben	 ?Crawford,	 ?Andreas	 ?Christen	 ?and	 ?Rick	 ?Ketler	 ?Department	 ?of	 ?Geography,	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?	 ?Version	 ?1.1	 ?February	 ?2012	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?2	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Introduction	 ?This	 ?report	 ?summarizes	 ?data	 ?processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?procedures	 ?used	 ?during	 ?the	 ?Vancouver	 ?experiment	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Environmental	 ?Prediction	 ?in	 ?Canadian	 ?Cities	 ?(EPiCC)	 ?network	 ?in	 ?2007-??2010.	 ?The	 ?document	 ?describes	 ?the	 ?procedures	 ?applied	 ?to	 ?calculate	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ?of	 ?sensible	 ?heat,	 ?latent	 ?heat	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?dioxide.	 ?	 ?Turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ?were	 ?measured	 ?at	 ?two	 ?suburban	 ?sites	 ?and	 ?one	 ?rural	 ?reference	 ?site	 ?(Figure	 ?1).	 ?	 ?Symbol	 ?definitions	 ?and	 ?units	 ?used	 ?in	 ?this	 ?report	 ?are	 ?found	 ?in	 ?Table	 ?9.	 ?	 ?As	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?EPiCC	 ?Network,	 ?the	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?/	 ?Department	 ?of	 ?Geography	 ?monitored	 ?energy,	 ?water,	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?balances	 ?in	 ?two	 ?suburban	 ?neighborhoods	 ?in	 ?Vancouver,	 ?BC,	 ?Canada	 ?in	 ?2008-??2009.	 ?	 ?Two	 ?flux	 ?towers,	 ??Vancouver-??Sunset?	 ?and	 ??Vancouver-??Oakridge?,	 ?were	 ?operated	 ?in	 ?extensive	 ?residential	 ?areas	 ?composed	 ?of	 ?single-??family	 ?homes.	 ?	 ?A	 ?rural	 ?reference	 ?flux	 ?station	 ??Westham	 ?Island?	 ?was	 ?located	 ?on	 ?flat,	 ?unmanaged	 ?and	 ?non-??irrigated	 ?grassland	 ?16	 ?km	 ?south	 ?of	 ?the	 ?two	 ?urban	 ?neighborhoods	 ?in	 ?an	 ?area	 ?dominated	 ?by	 ?intensive	 ?farming.	 ?	 ?Instrumentation	 ?	 ?Turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ?(latent	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?(QE),	 ?sensible	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?(QH),	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?flux	 ?(FC)	 ?were	 ?measured	 ?at	 ?all	 ?three	 ?sites	 ?using	 ?Campbell	 ?Scientific	 ?CSAT-??3d	 ?sonic	 ?anemometers	 ?and	 ?open-??path	 ?Li-??COR	 ?Li-??7500	 ?infrared	 ?gas	 ?analyzers	 ?(IRGAs)	 ?using	 ?the	 ?eddy-??covariance	 ?method.	 ?	 ?Wind	 ?direction	 ?(u,	 ?v,	 ?and	 ?w	 ?components),	 ?acoustic	 ?air	 ?temperature	 ?(TA),	 ?and	 ?CO2	 ?(c)	 ?and	 ?H2O	 ?(q)	 ?concentrations	 ?were	 ?sampled	 ?continuously	 ?at	 ?20	 ?Hz.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?1.	 ?Photos	 ?of	 ?the	 ?eddy-??covariance	 ?systems	 ?at	 ?Vancouver-??Sunset,	 ?Vancouver	 ?Oakridge,	 ?and	 ?Westham	 ?Island.	 ?	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?3	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Table	 ?1.	 ?Set-??up	 ?and	 ?settings	 ?of	 ?ultrasonic	 ?anemometer-??thermometers	 ?used	 ?during	 ?EPiCC.	 ?	 ?	 ?Table	 ?2.	 ?Set-??up	 ?of	 ?infrared	 ?gas	 ?analyzers	 ?used	 ?during	 ?EPiCC.	 ?	 ?                                                1	 ?Direction	 ?the	 ?sensor	 ?head	 ?is	 ?facing	 ?towards	 ?as	 ?seen	 ?from	 ?the	 ?level	 ?/	 ?mount	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?Geographic	 ?North.	 ?Site	 ? Sensor	 ?height	 ?above	 ?ground	 ?	 ?(m)	 ?Azimuth1	 ?	 ?(?)	 ? Sensor	 ?model	 ? Serial	 ?number	 ? Wicks	 ? Settings	 ?Vancouver-??Sunset	 ?(ST)	 ? 28.8	 ?	 ? 179.1	 ? Campbell	 ?Scientific	 ?CSAT	 ?3D	 ?1394	 ?(6/5/2008	 ??	 ?4/6/2009)	 ?1342	 ?(4/6/2009	 ?onward)	 ?Yes	 ? 60	 ?Hz	 ?internal,	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?output	 ?(SDM)	 ?Vancouver-??Oakridge	 ?(OM)	 ?29	 ?	 ? 305.0	 ?(2008)	 ?321.6	 ?(2009)	 ? Campbell	 ?Scientific	 ?CSAT	 ?3D	 ?1393	 ? Yes	 ? 60	 ?Hz	 ?internal,	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?output	 ?(SDM)	 ?Westham	 ?Island	 ?(WI)	 ? 1.8	 ?(27/7/2007	 ??	 ?23/6/2009)	 ?2.2	 ?	 ?(23/6/2009	 ??	 ?8/10/2009)	 ?355.0	 ? Campbell	 ?Scientific	 ?CSAT	 ?3D	 ?	 ?1342	 ?(27/7/2007	 ??	 ?4/6/2009)	 ?1393	 ?(4/6/2009	 ??	 ?11/6/2009)	 ?1394	 ?(11/6/2009	 ??	 ?8/10/2009)	 ?Yes	 ? 60	 ?Hz	 ?internal,	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?output	 ?(SDM)	 ?Site	 ? Sensor	 ?height	 ?above	 ?ground	 ?	 ?(m)	 ?Azimuth	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?Sonic	 ?(?)	 ?Distance	 ?to	 ?sonic	 ?(Vertical,	 ?Horizontal	 ?cm)	 ?Tilt	 ?from	 ?vertical	 ? Sensor	 ?models	 ?used	 ?	 ?Vancouver-??Sunset	 ? 28.8	 ? Approx.	 ?300?	 ? 0,	 ?40	 ? Tilted	 ?approx.	 ?60?	 ?to	 ?South	 ? 1222	 ?(6/5/2008	 ??	 ?24/6/2009)	 ?0561	 ?(24/6/2009	 ??	 ?present)	 ?Vancouver-??Oakridge	 ? 29	 ? Approx.	 ?60?	 ? 0,	 ?18	 ? Tilted	 ?approx.	 ?30?	 ?to	 ?North	 ? 0561	 ?(8/7/2008	 ??	 ?27/8/2008)	 ?1222	 ?(27/6/2009	 ??	 ?31/8/2009)	 ?Westham	 ?Island	 ? 1.8	 ?(27/7/2007	 ??	 ?23/6/2009)	 ?	 ?2.2	 ?(23/6/2009	 ??	 ?8/10/2009)	 ?Approx.	 ?350?	 ? 0,	 ?17	 ? Tilted	 ?approx	 ?60?	 ?to	 ?North	 ? 0151	 ?(27/7/2007	 ??	 ?10/10/2008)	 ?0561	 ?(10/10/2008	 ??	 ?23/6/2009)	 ?0151	 ?(23/6/2009	 ??	 ?8/10/2009)	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?4	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?	 ? 	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?5	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Sensor	 ?Calibrations	 ?	 ?As	 ?part	 ?of	 ?an	 ?NSERC	 ?DG	 ?research	 ?program,	 ?a	 ?field	 ?intercomparison	 ?of	 ?sonic	 ?anemometers	 ?was	 ?conducted	 ?from	 ?May	 ?27	 ??	 ?June	 ?15,	 ?2009	 ?at	 ?the	 ?Westham	 ?Island	 ?site	 ?including	 ?sonics	 ?used	 ?during	 ?EPiCC.	 ?	 ?Results	 ?for	 ?the	 ?sonics	 ?that	 ?were	 ?operated	 ?during	 ?EPiCC	 ?are	 ?summarized	 ?in	 ?Appendix	 ?1	 ?(Table	 ?6).	 ?Although	 ?sonic	 ?SN#1342	 ?was	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?the	 ?intercomparison,	 ?there	 ?are	 ?no	 ?statistics	 ?available	 ?for	 ?SN#1342	 ?because	 ?there	 ?were	 ?no	 ?30-??minute	 ?periods	 ?deemed	 ?acceptable	 ?for	 ?comparison	 ?(i.e.	 ?greater	 ?than	 ?90%	 ?of	 ?measured	 ?wind	 ?direction	 ?from	 ?45?	 ?in	 ?front	 ?of	 ?the	 ?sonic).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?3.	 ?Intercomparison	 ?set-??up	 ?close	 ?to	 ?the	 ?the	 ?Westham	 ?Island	 ?site.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?IRGAs	 ?were	 ?calibrated	 ?regularly	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UBC	 ?Biometeorology	 ?lab	 ?(Table	 ?3).	 ?	 ?First,	 ?H2O	 ?and	 ?CO2	 ?readings	 ?are	 ?zeroed	 ?using	 ?dry	 ?N2	 ?gas	 ?with	 ?0	 ?ppm	 ?CO2.	 ?	 ?Next,	 ?the	 ?H2O	 ?readings	 ?are	 ?spanned	 ?with	 ?air	 ?at	 ?a	 ?dew	 ?point	 ?temperature	 ?of	 ?8.5?	 ?C	 ?using	 ?a	 ?dew	 ?point	 ?generator.	 ?Finally,	 ?CO2	 ?is	 ?spanned	 ?using	 ?reference	 ?gas	 ?of	 ?452	 ?ppm	 ?CO2.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Table	 ?3.	 ?Calibrations	 ?and	 ?software	 ?settings	 ?of	 ?infrared	 ?gas	 ?analyzers	 ?used	 ?during	 ?EPiCC.	 ?	 ? Model	 ? Serial	 ?No	 ? Calibration	 ?Dates	 ? OS	 ?Version	 ?during	 ?EPiCC	 ?LI-??7500	 ? 0151	 ? 5/12/2007,	 ?23/10/2008,	 ?10/6/2009	 ? Windows	 ?Interface	 ?v3.0.2	 ?Internal	 ?v3.0.1	 ?LI-??7500	 ? 0561	 ? 26/6/2008,	 ?24/6/2009	 ? Windows	 ?Interface	 ?v3.0.2	 ?Internal	 ?v3.0.1	 ?LI-??7500	 ? 1222	 ? 4/3/2008,	 ?15/6/2009	 ? Windows	 ?Interface	 ?v3.0.2	 ?Internal	 ?v3.0.1	 ?	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?6	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?High	 ?frequency	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?	 ?In	 ?a	 ?first	 ?step,	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?(20	 ?Hz)	 ?data	 ?pass	 ?through	 ?several	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?filters	 ?before	 ?covariances	 ?and	 ?fluxes	 ?are	 ?calculated:	 ?Sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?diagnostic	 ?value	 ?The	 ?CSAT	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?reports	 ?if	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?path	 ?is	 ?obstructed,	 ?the	 ?path	 ?length	 ?has	 ?been	 ?altered,	 ?or	 ?for	 ?up	 ?to	 ?10	 ?seconds	 ?after	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?has	 ?just	 ?been	 ?powered	 ?on	 ?(Campbell	 ?Scientific,	 ?2009).	 ?Individual	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?u,	 ?v,	 ?w,	 ?and	 ?t	 ?data	 ?points	 ?are	 ?withheld	 ?from	 ?further	 ?processing	 ?when	 ?diagnostic	 ?values	 ?are	 ?triggered.	 ?IRGA	 ?diagnostic	 ?value	 ?Precipitation,	 ?condensation,	 ?fog,	 ?insects,	 ?etc.	 ?in	 ?the	 ?optical	 ?path	 ?of	 ?the	 ?IRGA	 ?may	 ?interfere	 ?with	 ?measurements	 ?of	 ?c	 ?and	 ?q.	 ?	 ?The	 ?automatic	 ?gain	 ?control	 ?(AGC)	 ?output	 ?of	 ?the	 ?IRGA	 ?registers	 ?a	 ?change	 ?in	 ?value	 ?if	 ?the	 ?optical	 ?path	 ?of	 ?the	 ?IRGA	 ?is	 ?blocked	 ?(LI-??COR,	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?The	 ?AGC	 ?value	 ?was	 ?recorded	 ?at	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?at	 ?all	 ?sites	 ?and	 ?ranges	 ?from	 ?0	 ??	 ?100	 ?(the	 ?optical	 ?path	 ?is	 ?completely	 ?obscured	 ?at	 ?100).	 ?If	 ?there	 ?is	 ?any	 ?change	 ?in	 ?AGC	 ?value,	 ?or	 ?if	 ?the	 ?AGC	 ?value	 ?is	 ?greater	 ?than	 ?90,	 ?H20	 ?and	 ?CO2	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?data	 ?for	 ??5	 ?seconds	 ?around	 ?that	 ?point	 ?are	 ?withheld	 ?from	 ?further	 ?processing.	 ?High	 ?frequency	 ?spike	 ?detection	 ?Random	 ?electronic	 ?noise	 ?and	 ?short-??term	 ?data	 ??spikes?	 ?are	 ?filtered	 ?out	 ?of	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?data	 ?sets	 ?using	 ?a	 ?dynamic	 ?iterative	 ?standard	 ?deviation	 ?filter	 ?(e.g.	 ?Vickers	 ?and	 ?Mahrt	 ?1997).	 ?First,	 ?individual	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?data	 ?points	 ?are	 ?flagged	 ?if	 ?they	 ?fall	 ?outside	 ?a	 ?physically	 ?justified,	 ?realistic	 ?data	 ?range	 ?for	 ?each	 ?variable	 ?(Table	 ?5).	 ?	 ?Individual	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?data	 ?points	 ?are	 ?then	 ?flagged	 ?as	 ?spikes	 ?and	 ?withheld	 ?from	 ?further	 ?processing	 ?if	 ?they	 ?are	 ?above	 ?or	 ?below	 ?a	 ?variable-??specific	 ?standard	 ?deviation	 ?threshold	 ?from	 ?a	 ?30-??minute	 ?mean	 ?(Table	 ?5).	 ?	 ?Consecutive	 ?passes	 ?are	 ?then	 ?performed	 ?with	 ?the	 ?standard	 ?deviation	 ?threshold	 ?raised	 ?by	 ?0.3	 ?each	 ?time	 ?until	 ?no	 ?spikes	 ?are	 ?detected.	 ?	 ?Spikes	 ?must	 ?also	 ?be	 ?less	 ?than	 ?0.3	 ?seconds	 ?in	 ?duration,	 ?otherwise	 ?they	 ?are	 ?considered	 ?real.	 ?Flow	 ?distortion	 ?by	 ?the	 ?sensor	 ?head	 ?Wind	 ?tunnel	 ?measurements	 ?of	 ?CSAT-??3d	 ?anemometers	 ?show	 ?that	 ?flow	 ?is	 ?strongly	 ?distorted	 ?when	 ??	 ?7?	 ?from	 ?directly	 ?behind	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?mounting	 ?block	 ?(Figure	 ?4).	 ?	 ?30-??minute	 ?flux	 ?averaging	 ?periods	 ?are	 ?flagged	 ?as	 ?questionable	 ?if	 ?more	 ?than	 ?25%	 ?of	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?wind	 ?directions	 ?fall	 ?within	 ??	 ?7?	 ?of	 ?180?	 ?from	 ?the	 ?sonic?s	 ?azimuth	 ?(Table	 ?4).	 ? 	 ?Table	 ?4.	 ?	 ?Wind	 ?directions	 ?influenced	 ?by	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?mounting	 ?block.	 ?	 ?The	 ?Oakridge	 ?Tower	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?was	 ?oriented	 ?differently	 ?during	 ?2008	 ?and	 ?2009.	 ?	 ? Site	 ? Wind	 ?directions	 ?withheld	 ?from	 ?flux	 ?processing	 ?Vancouver-??Sunset	 ?	 ? 352?	 ?-??	 ?6?	 ?Vancouver-??Oakridge	 ?	 ? 118?-??	 ?132?	 ?(2008),	 ?134.6?	 ?-??	 ?148.6?	 ?(2009)	 ?Westham	 ?Island	 ?	 ? 168?	 ?-??	 ?182?	 ?	 ? 	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?7	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.	 ?Difference	 ?of	 ?wind	 ?speed	 ?measurement	 ?(vector	 ?mean)	 ?between	 ?wind	 ?tunnel	 ?and	 ?a	 ?CSAT3d	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?at	 ?4	 ?m	 ?s-??1	 ?dependent	 ?from	 ?azimuth	 ?and	 ?tilt	 ?in	 ?%	 ?(Christen	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?2002).	 ?	 ?High-??frequency	 ?statistics	 ?check	 ?Statistics	 ?of	 ?30-??minute	 ?standard	 ?deviation,	 ?skewness,	 ?and	 ?kurtosis	 ?are	 ?calculated	 ?for	 ?u,	 ?v,	 ?w,	 ?t,	 ?q,	 ?and	 ?c.	 ?	 ?Empirical	 ?limits	 ?were	 ?determined	 ?for	 ?each	 ?variable	 ?and	 ?data	 ?from	 ?periods	 ?with	 ?values	 ?outside	 ?these	 ?limits	 ?are	 ?flagged	 ?as	 ?questionable	 ?(Table	 ?5).	 ?	 ? Table	 ?5.	 ?Summary	 ?of	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?limits	 ?and	 ?thresholds	 ?used	 ?for	 ?high-??frequency	 ?eddy	 ?covariance	 ?data.	 ?	 ?	 ? u	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? v	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? w	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? t	 ?(?C)	 ? q	 ?(mmol	 ?m-??3)	 ? c	 ?(mmol	 ?m-??3)	 ?Physically-??based	 ?min/max	 ?thresholds	 ?(variable	 ?units)	 ?	 ? -??30	 ?/	 ?30	 ? -??30	 ?/	 ?30	 ? -??5	 ?/	 ?5	 ? -??20	 ?/	 ?40	 ? 100	 ?/	 ?1500	 ? 12	 ?/	 ?40	 ?Spike	 ?threshold	 ?(standard	 ?deviations)	 ?	 ? 6	 ? 6	 ? 8	 ? 8	 ? 10	 ? 10	 ?Standard	 ?deviation	 ?(min/max)	 ?	 ? 0.05	 ?/	 ?4.0	 ? 0.05	 ?/	 ?4.0	 ? 0.02	 ?/	 ?1.5	 ? 0.01	 ?/	 ?2.0	 ? 0.01	 ?/	 ?150.0	 ? 0.001	 ?/	 ?2.0	 ?Skewness	 ?(min/max)	 ?	 ? -??3.0	 ?/	 ?3.0	 ? -??3.0	 ?/	 ?3.0	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?2.0	 ? -??2.5	 ?/	 ?2.5	 ? -??5.0	 ?/	 ?5.0	 ? -??5.0	 ?/	 ?5.0	 ?Kurtosis	 ?(min/max)	 ?	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?5.0	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?5.0	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?15.0	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?15.0	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?15.0	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?15.0	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?  Difference (utunnel-uCSAT3) / utunnel in %EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?8	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Sonic	 ??	 ?IRGA	 ?time	 ?lag	 ?	 ?Due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?separation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?and	 ?IRGA,	 ?measurements	 ?of	 ?q	 ?and	 ?c	 ?are	 ?not	 ?exactly	 ?correlated	 ?with	 ?measurements	 ?of	 ?wind	 ?velocity	 ?because	 ?of	 ?the	 ?travel	 ?time	 ?of	 ?an	 ?air	 ?parcel	 ?between	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?and	 ?IRGA.	 ?	 ?The	 ?magnitude	 ?of	 ?this	 ?lag	 ?was	 ?calculated	 ?by	 ?shifting	 ?q	 ?and	 ?c	 ?time	 ?series	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?w	 ?and	 ?determining	 ?the	 ?maximum	 ?covariance	 ?(Table	 ?6).	 ?	 ?Lag	 ?times	 ?vary	 ?by	 ?wind	 ?direction	 ?and	 ?were	 ?calculated	 ?for	 ?eight	 ?wind	 ?sectors	 ?at	 ?each	 ?site,	 ?but	 ?only	 ?average	 ?lag	 ?times	 ?are	 ?reported	 ?here.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Table	 ?6.	 ?Average	 ?sonic	 ??	 ?IRGA	 ?lag	 ?in	 ?milliseconds	 ?and	 ?number	 ?of	 ?records	 ?by	 ?site	 ?and	 ?IRGA	 ?for	 ?both	 ?CO2	 ?and	 ?H2O.	 ?	 ?Site	 ?and	 ?Date	 ? IRGA	 ?SN	 ? CO2	 ?(ms)	 ? CO2	 ?(records)	 ? H2O	 ?(ms)	 ? H2O	 ?(records)	 ?ST	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ?6/5/2008	 ??	 ?23/6/2009	 ? 1222	 ? -??42.1	 ? -??0.84	 ? -??41.1	 ? -??0.82	 ?25/6/2009	 ??	 ?20/4/2010	 ? 0561	 ? -??41.8	 ? -??0.84	 ? -??40.0	 ? -??0.80	 ?OM	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ?9/7/2008	 ??	 ?31/8/2008	 ? 0561	 ? -??30.7	 ? -??0.61	 ? -??31.2	 ? -??0.62	 ?27/6/2009	 ??	 ?31/8/2009	 ? 1222	 ? -??32.8	 ? -??0.66	 ? -??25.4	 ? -??0.50	 ?WI	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ?27/7/2007	 ??	 ?31/12/2008	 ? 0151	 ? 7.2	 ? 0.14	 ? -??5.29	 ? -??0.11	 ?11/10/2009	 ??	 ?23/6/2009	 ? 0561	 ? 20.76	 ? 0.42	 ? 12.99	 ? 0.25	 ?24/7/2009	 ??	 ?8/10/2009	 ? 0151	 ? -??38.1	 ? -??0.76	 ? -??44.3	 ? -??0.89	 ?	 ?For	 ?all	 ?sites,	 ?lag	 ?times	 ?were	 ?less	 ?than	 ?the	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?measurement	 ?resolution	 ?(i.e.	 ?less	 ?than	 ?1	 ?record	 ?length),	 ?so	 ?it	 ?is	 ?doubtful	 ?that	 ?the	 ?lag	 ?can	 ?be	 ?accounted	 ?for	 ?by	 ?shifting	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?and	 ?IRGA	 ?time-??series	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?each	 ?other	 ?with	 ?out	 ?introducing	 ?additional	 ?uncertainties.	 ?	 ?To	 ?test	 ?this,	 ?covariances	 ?(w?c?	 ?and	 ?w?q?)	 ?were	 ?calculated	 ?with	 ?IRGA	 ?c	 ?and	 ?q	 ?time	 ?series	 ?shifted	 ?forward	 ?by	 ?1	 ?record	 ?length	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?wind	 ?vector	 ?data.	 ?These	 ?covariances	 ?were	 ?then	 ?compared	 ?with	 ?covariances	 ?calculated	 ?from	 ?un-??shifted	 ?data.	 ?	 ?Seven	 ?half-??hour	 ?periods	 ?(20	 ?July	 ?2009,	 ?0900-??1200)	 ?measured	 ?at	 ?Sunset	 ?Tower	 ?were	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?test	 ?period	 ?representative	 ?of	 ?summer,	 ?clear	 ?sky	 ?conditions	 ?with	 ?flow	 ?from	 ?the	 ?NW.	 ?	 ?Covariances	 ?calculated	 ?from	 ?shifted	 ?time	 ?series	 ?were	 ?0.4%	 ?different	 ?for	 ?w?c?	 ?and	 ?0.3%	 ?different	 ?for	 ?w?q?	 ?than	 ?un-??shifted	 ?covariances.	 ?	 ?This	 ?difference	 ?is	 ?deemed	 ?negligible,	 ?so	 ?record-??shifting	 ?is	 ?not	 ?implemented	 ?during	 ?flux	 ?data	 ?processing.	 ?	 ?Block	 ?average	 ?calculation	 ?and	 ?rotation	 ?	 ?In	 ?a	 ?second	 ?step	 ?after	 ?initial	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?data	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?filters,	 ?mean	 ?values	 ?and	 ?higher-??order	 ?moments	 ?(including	 ?covariances)	 ?are	 ?calculated	 ?if	 ?a	 ?30-??minute	 ?period	 ?has	 ?greater	 ?than	 ?75%	 ?of	 ?possible	 ?u,	 ?v,	 ?w,	 ?TA,	 ?c,	 ?and	 ?q	 ?20	 ?Hz	 ?data	 ?points.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Wind	 ?components	 ?are	 ?rotated	 ?two	 ?times	 ?so	 ?that	 ?the	 ?x-??axis	 ?of	 ?the	 ?new	 ?sonic	 ?coordinate	 ?system	 ?is	 ?aligned	 ?with	 ?the	 ?mean	 ?30-??minute	 ?wind	 ?direction,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?mean	 ?vertical	 ?wind	 ?w	 ?is	 ?zero	 ?(e.g.	 ?McMillen	 ?1988,	 ?Finnigan	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2002).	 ?Following	 ?Reynold?s	 ?decomposition,	 ?30-??minute	 ?statistics	 ?are	 ?calculated	 ?based	 ?on	 ?a	 ?simple	 ?block-??average.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?9	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Corrections	 ?applied	 ?to	 ?turbulent	 ?flux	 ?densities	 ?	 ?30-??minute	 ?fluxes	 ?are	 ?then	 ?subject	 ?to	 ?additional	 ?corrections	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?filters	 ?specific	 ?to	 ?QH,	 ?QE	 ?and	 ?FC.	 ?	 ?Latent	 ?Heat	 ?Flux	 ?(QE)	 ?	 ?1)	 ?The	 ?30-??minute	 ?QE	 ?is	 ?calculated	 ?as:	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[1]	 ?where:	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[2]	 ?	 ?2)	 ?QE	 ?values	 ?are	 ?then	 ?corrected	 ?to	 ?account	 ?for	 ?volume	 ?and	 ?density	 ?changes	 ?of	 ?air	 ?due	 ?to	 ?temperature	 ?and	 ?water	 ?vapor	 ?fluctuations.	 ?	 ?Following	 ?Webb	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(1980),	 ?the	 ?corrected	 ?QE	 ?is:	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[3]	 ?where:	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[4]	 ?	 ?and:	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[5]	 ?	 ?and	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?Clausius-??Clapeyron	 ?equation:	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[6]	 ?	 ?3)	 ?QE	 ?values	 ?are	 ?also	 ?corrected	 ?to	 ?account	 ?for	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?flux	 ?losses	 ?based	 ?on	 ?IRGA	 ?and	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?path	 ?length	 ?and	 ?separation	 ?between	 ?the	 ?IRGA	 ?and	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?sensors	 ?(Moore	 ?1986).	 ?	 ?Inputs	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Moore	 ?correction	 ?include:	 ?	 ? ?	 ?	 ? Instrument	 ?specific	 ?path	 ?lengths	 ?of	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?(11.6	 ?cm)	 ?and	 ?IRGA	 ?(12.5	 ?cm)	 ??	 ?	 ? Site	 ?specific	 ?sonic	 ?and	 ?IRGA	 ?horizontal	 ?separation	 ?(Table	 ?2).	 ??	 ?	 ? Measurement	 ?height	 ?(Table	 ?1).	 ??	 ?	 ? Measured	 ?horizontal	 ?wind	 ?speed	 ?from	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer.	 ??	 ?	 ? Zero-??plane	 ?displacement	 ?(zd),	 ?estimated	 ?as	 ?2/3	 ?the	 ?average	 ?height	 ?of	 ?the	 ?canopy	 ?(effective	 ?canopy	 ?height	 ?=	 ?10.6	 ?m	 ?for	 ?Sunset,	 ?8.0	 ?m	 ?for	 ?Oakridge,	 ?variable	 ?canopy	 ?height	 ?at	 ?Westham	 ?because	 ?of	 ?growing	 ?grass	 ?(Figure	 ?5)).	 ??	 ?	 ? Monin-??Obukhov	 ?Length,	 ?calculated	 ?as:	 ? ? QE= LV*w'q'? LV= (2.501? 0.00237*T) *106? QE= w'q' +MAMq*?q?A*w'q' + 1+MAMq*?q?A# $ % % & ' ( ( *?qTA*w' t '? ?q=e*MqT *R? ?A=(P ? e) * MAT *R? e = RH * eO*expLVRV*1273?1T# $ % & ' ( # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?10	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[7]	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? Figure	 ?5.	 ?Vegetation	 ?canopy	 ?height	 ?at	 ?Westham	 ?Island	 ?used	 ?as	 ?an	 ?input	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Moore	 ?flux	 ?correction.	 ?	 ?	 ?4)	 ?Comparisons	 ?of	 ?potential	 ?temperature	 ?measured	 ?from	 ?both	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?and	 ?HMP	 ?T/RH	 ?sensor	 ?at	 ?each	 ?site	 ?were	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?check	 ?on	 ?sonic	 ?performance.	 ?	 ?During	 ?and	 ?after	 ?precipitation	 ?events	 ?when	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?path	 ?length	 ?may	 ?be	 ?obstructed	 ?by	 ?water,	 ?measurements	 ?of	 ?wind	 ?velocities	 ?(and	 ?therefore	 ?QE)	 ?may	 ?be	 ?unreliable.	 ?	 ?During	 ?these	 ?periods,	 ?the	 ?HMP?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?temperature	 ?is	 ?assumed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?unaffected.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?For	 ?each	 ?site	 ?and	 ?sonic,	 ?potential	 ?temperature	 ?was	 ?calculated	 ?from	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?and	 ?HMP	 ?temperature	 ?measurements	 ?and	 ?compared.	 ?	 ?If	 ?the	 ?difference	 ?between	 ?measurements	 ?fell	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?empirically	 ?determined	 ?limits	 ?for	 ?each	 ?site/sensor	 ?configuration,	 ?30-??minute	 ?values	 ?of	 ?QE	 ?were	 ?flagged	 ?as	 ?questionable	 ?(Table	 ?7).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?? L = ?1*(u'w')2+ (v'w')2( )0.25# $ % & ' ( 3k *gT# $ % & ' ( *w' t'EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?11	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Sensible	 ?Heat	 ?Flux	 ?(QH)	 ?1)	 ?30-??minute	 ?QH	 ?is	 ?calculated	 ?as:	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[8]	 ?where	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[9]	 ?and	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[10]	 ?2)	 ?QH	 ?values	 ?are	 ?then	 ?corrected	 ?to	 ?account	 ?for	 ?moisture	 ?influences	 ?on	 ?air	 ?temperature	 ?and	 ?density.	 ?	 ?Following	 ?Schotanus	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(1983),	 ?corrected	 ?QH	 ?is:	 ? 	 ?[11]	 ?3)	 ?QH	 ?values	 ?are	 ?also	 ?corrected	 ?to	 ?account	 ?for	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?flux	 ?losses	 ?based	 ?on	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?acoustic	 ?path	 ?length	 ?(Moore	 ?1986,	 ?refer	 ?also	 ?to	 ?QE	 ?section).	 ?	 ?4)	 ?Comparisons	 ?of	 ?potential	 ?temperature	 ?measured	 ?from	 ?both	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?and	 ?HMP	 ?T/RH	 ?sensor	 ?at	 ?each	 ?site	 ?were	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?check	 ?on	 ?sonic	 ?performance.	 ?	 ?During	 ?and	 ?after	 ?precipitation	 ?events	 ?when	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?path	 ?length	 ?may	 ?be	 ?obstructed	 ?by	 ?water,	 ?measurements	 ?of	 ?wind	 ?velocities	 ?and	 ?temperature	 ?(and	 ?therefore	 ?QH)	 ?may	 ?be	 ?unreliable.	 ?	 ?During	 ?these	 ?periods,	 ?the	 ?HMP?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?temperature	 ?is	 ?assumed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?unaffected.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?For	 ?each	 ?site	 ?and	 ?sonic,	 ?potential	 ?temperature	 ?was	 ?calculated	 ?from	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?and	 ?HMP	 ?temperature	 ?measurements	 ?and	 ?compared.	 ?	 ?If	 ?the	 ?difference	 ?between	 ?measurements	 ?fell	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?empirically	 ?determined	 ?limits	 ?for	 ?each	 ?site/sensor	 ?configuration,	 ?30-??minute	 ?values	 ?of	 ?QH	 ?were	 ?flagged	 ?as	 ?questionable	 ?(Table	 ?7).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Carbon	 ?Dioxide	 ?Flux	 ?(FC)	 ?	 ?1)	 ?30-??minute	 ?FC	 ?is	 ?calculated	 ?as:	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[12]	 ?	 ?2)	 ?FC	 ?values	 ?are	 ?then	 ?corrected	 ?according	 ?to	 ?Webb	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(1980):	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?[13]	 ?	 ?3)	 ?FC	 ?values	 ?are	 ?also	 ?corrected	 ?to	 ?account	 ?for	 ?high	 ?frequency	 ?flux	 ?losses	 ?based	 ?on	 ?IRGA	 ?and	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?path	 ?length	 ?and	 ?horizontal	 ?separation	 ?between	 ?the	 ?IRGA	 ?and	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?sensors	 ?(Moore	 ?1986,	 ?refer	 ?also	 ?to	 ?QE	 ?section).	 ?	 ?4)	 ?Comparisons	 ?of	 ?potential	 ?temperature	 ?measured	 ?from	 ?both	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?and	 ?HMP	 ?T/RH	 ?sensor	 ?at	 ?each	 ?site	 ?were	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?check	 ?on	 ?sonic	 ?performance.	 ?	 ?During	 ?and	 ?after	 ?precipitation	 ?events	 ?when	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?? QH= w' t ' *cp* ?? cp=1004.67* (1+ 0.84 * r)? r =0.622*eP ? e? QH= w' t '? 0.51*TA1+ 0.51* ?q? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? *w'q'? FC= w'c '? FC= w'c ' +MAMq*?C?A*w'q' + 1+MAMq*?q?A# $ % % & ' ( ( *?CTA*w' t 'EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?12	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?path	 ?length	 ?may	 ?be	 ?obstructed	 ?by	 ?water,	 ?measurements	 ?of	 ?wind	 ?velocities	 ?(and	 ?therefore	 ?FC)	 ?may	 ?be	 ?unreliable.	 ?	 ?During	 ?these	 ?periods,	 ?the	 ?HMP?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?temperature	 ?is	 ?assumed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?unaffected.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?For	 ?each	 ?site	 ?and	 ?sonic,	 ?potential	 ?temperature	 ?was	 ?calculated	 ?from	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?and	 ?HMP	 ?temperature	 ?measurements	 ?and	 ?compared.	 ?	 ?If	 ?the	 ?difference	 ?between	 ?measurements	 ?fell	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?empirically	 ?determined	 ?limits	 ?for	 ?each	 ?site/sensor	 ?configuration,	 ?30-??minute	 ?values	 ?of	 ?FC	 ?were	 ?flagged	 ?as	 ?questionable	 ?(Table	 ?7).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?5)	 ?Hourly	 ?CO2	 ?storage	 ?(?FS)	 ?below	 ?measurement	 ?height	 ?was	 ?accounted	 ?for	 ?using	 ?half-??hourly	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?CO2	 ?concentration	 ?measured	 ?by	 ?the	 ?IRGA	 ?at	 ?the	 ?height	 ?of	 ?the	 ?eddy-??covariance	 ?system:	 ???? = ? ? ??	 ?where	 ?z	 ?is	 ?the	 ?measurement	 ?height	 ?(effectively,	 ?this	 ?is	 ?the	 ?air	 ?column	 ?volume	 ?below	 ?measurement	 ?height	 ?in	 ?m3),	 ???	 ?is	 ?the	 ?change	 ?in	 ?CO2	 ?concentration	 ?(?mol	 ?m-??3	 ?s-??1)	 ?(Hollinger	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?1994).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Table	 ?7.	 ?Sonic	 ??	 ?HMP	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?temperature	 ?departure	 ?limits.	 ?	 ? Site	 ?and	 ?Date	 ? Sonic	 ?SN	 ? Low/High	 ?limit	 ?(?C)	 ?ST	 ? 	 ? 	 ?06/05/2008	 ??	 ?04/06/2009	 ? 1394	 ? -??1.5	 ?/	 ?1.5	 ?04/06/2009	 ?-??	 ?present	 ? 1342	 ? -??1.5	 ?/	 ?1.5	 ?OM	 ? 	 ? 	 ?30/06/2008	 ??	 ?31/08/2009	 ? 1393	 ? -??1.5	 ?/	 ?1.5	 ?WI	 ? 	 ? 	 ?01/07/2007	 ?-??	 ?	 ?11/06/2009	 ? 1394	 ? -??1.5	 ?/	 ?1.5	 ?11/06/2009	 ??	 ?08/10/2009	 ? 1394	 ? -??2.0	 ?/	 ?2.0	 ?	 ? Table	 ?8.	 ?IRGA	 ??	 ?HMP	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?specific	 ?humidity	 ?departure	 ?limits.	 ?	 ?Site	 ?and	 ?Date	 ? IRGA	 ?SN	 ? Low/High	 ?limit	 ?(g	 ?kg-??1)	 ?ST	 ? 	 ? 	 ?06/05/2008	 ??	 ?24/06/2009	 ? 1222	 ? -??0.75	 ?/	 ?0.75	 ?24/06/2009	 ??	 ?18/03/2010	 ? 0561	 ? -??0.75	 ?/	 ?	 ?0.75	 ?OM	 ? 	 ? 	 ?30/06/2008	 ??	 ?27/8/2008	 ? 0561	 ? -??0.75	 ?/	 ?0.75	 ?27/6/2009	 ??	 ?31/8/2009	 ? 1222	 ? -??0.75	 ?/	 ?0.75	 ?WI	 ? 	 ? 	 ?01/07/2007	 ?-??	 ?	 ?10/10/2008	 ? 0151	 ? -??3	 ?/	 ?3	 ?10/10/2008	 ??	 ?23/6/2009	 ? 0561	 ? -??1.5	 ?/	 ?1.5	 ?23/6/2009	 ??	 ?8/10/2009	 ? 0151	 ? -??3	 ?/	 ?3	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?13	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Table	 ?9.	 ?	 ?Symbol	 ?definitions	 ?and	 ?units.	 ?	 ? Symbol	 ? Definition	 ? Units	 ? Value	 ?QE	 ? Turbulent	 ?latent	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?density	 ? W	 ?m-??2	 ? 	 ?QH	 ? Turbulent	 ?sensible	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?density	 ? W	 ?m-??2	 ? 	 ?FC	 ? Turbulent	 ?carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?flux	 ?density	 ? ?mol	 ?m-??2	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?u	 ? Longitudinal	 ?wind	 ?component	 ?	 ? m	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?v	 ? Lateral	 ?wind	 ?component	 ?	 ? m	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?w	 ? Vertical	 ?wind	 ?component	 ?	 ? m	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?T	 ? Air	 ?temperature	 ?from	 ?slow-??response	 ?sensor	 ? K	 ? 	 ?TA	 ? Acoustic	 ?air	 ?temperature	 ?from	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ? K	 ? 	 ?c	 ? Atmospheric	 ?carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?concentration	 ? ?mol	 ?m-??3	 ? 	 ?q	 ? Atmospheric	 ?water	 ?vapor	 ?concentration	 ? g	 ?m-??3	 ? 	 ?	 ? Covariance	 ?of	 ?w?	 ?and	 ?q?	 ? g	 ?m-??2	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?	 ? Covariance	 ?of	 ?w?	 ?and	 ?t?	 ? K	 ?m	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?	 ? Covariance	 ?of	 ?w?	 ?and	 ?c?	 ? ?mol	 ?m-??2	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?L	 ? Obukhov	 ?length	 ? m	 ? See	 ?equation	 ?[4]	 ?k	 ? Von-??Karman	 ?constant	 ? 	 ? 0.4	 ?g	 ? Gravitational	 ?acceleration	 ? m	 ?s-??2	 ? 9.8	 ?LV	 ? Latent	 ?heat	 ?of	 ?vaporization	 ? J	 ?kg-??1	 ? See	 ?equation	 ?[2]	 ?MA	 ? Molecular	 ?mass	 ?of	 ?dry	 ?air	 ? kg	 ?mol-??1	 ? 0.02896	 ?Mq	 ? Molecular	 ?mass	 ?of	 ?water	 ?vapor	 ? kg	 ?mol-??1	 ? 0.01802	 ??A	 ? Density	 ?of	 ?dry	 ?air	 ? kg	 ?m-??3	 ? See	 ?equation	 ?[5]	 ??q	 ? Density	 ?of	 ?water	 ?vapor	 ? kg	 ?m-??3	 ? See	 ?equation	 ?[4]	 ??C	 ? Density	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?dioxide	 ? kg	 ?m-??3	 ? 	 ??	 ? Density	 ?of	 ?moist	 ?air	 ? kg	 ?m-??3	 ? ?A	 ?+	 ??q	 ?e	 ? Vapor	 ?pressure	 ? hPa	 ? See	 ?equation	 ?[6]	 ?r	 ? Mixing	 ?ratio	 ? kg	 ?kg-??1	 ? See	 ?equation	 ?[10]	 ?R	 ? Universal	 ?gas	 ?constant	 ? J	 ?K-??1	 ?mol-??1	 ? 8.314	 ?RV	 ? Gas	 ?constant	 ?for	 ?water	 ?vapour	 ? J	 ?K-??1	 ?kg-??1	 ? 461	 ?RH	 ? Relative	 ?humidity	 ? %	 ? 	 ?P	 ? Barometric	 ?pressure	 ? hPa	 ? 	 ?cp	 ? Specific	 ?heat	 ?of	 ?air	 ? J	 ?kg-??1	 ?K-??1	 ? See	 ?equation	 ?[9]	 ?Q*	 ? Net	 ?all-??wave	 ?radiation	 ? W	 ?m-??2	 ? 	 ?ws	 ? Wind	 ?speed	 ? m	 ?s-??1	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?? w'q'? w' t '? w'c 'EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?14	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Appendix	 ?1	 ??	 ?Sonic	 ?Anemometer-??Thermometer	 ?Field	 ?Intercomparison	 ?	 ?	 ?Table	 ?10.	 ?	 ?Summary	 ?of	 ?results	 ?from	 ?the	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?field	 ?intercomparison	 ?expressed	 ?as	 ?linear	 ?regression	 ?between	 ?measured	 ?value	 ?and	 ?reference	 ?sonic	 ?value	 ?(#1389)	 ?	 ? Parameter	 ? Sonic	 ?SN	 ? Slope	 ? Intercept	 ? Mean	 ?difference	 ?from	 ?reference	 ?Std.	 ?dev.	 ?of	 ?difference	 ?from	 ?reference	 ?Reference	 ?mean	 ?	 ?(SN#	 ?1389)	 ?Mean	 ?u	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? 1393	 ? 0.99749	 ? -??0.00297	 ? -??0.00876	 ? 0.04878	 ? 2.39409	 ?1394	 ? 1.00429	 ? -??0.00440	 ? 0.00631	 ? 0.04173	 ?Mean	 ?v	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? 1393	 ? 0.98079	 ? 0.02516	 ? 0.01870	 ? 0.02655	 ? 0.34126	 ?1394	 ? 1.00879	 ? -??0.10279	 ? -??0.09941	 ? 0.03136	 ?Mean	 ?w	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? 1393	 ? -??0.08958	 ? -??0.01906	 ? -??0.01712	 ? 0.01868	 ? -??0.00179	 ?1394	 ? 0.28074	 ? -??0.05172	 ? -??0.05126	 ? 0.01637	 ?Mean	 ?T	 ?(C)	 ? 1393	 ? 1.01565	 ? 0.48876	 ? 0.72420	 ? 0.04658	 ? 15.04097	 ?1394	 ? 0.99663	 ? 1.41406	 ? 1.36362	 ? 0.05507	 ?3d	 ?vector	 ?wind	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? 1393	 ? 0.99799	 ? -??0.00313	 ? -??0.00797	 ? 0.04529	 ? 2.46384	 ?1394	 ? 1.00121	 ? -??0.00767	 ? -??0.00458	 ? 0.05141	 ?3d	 ?cup	 ?wind	 ?(m	 ?s-??1)	 ? 1393	 ? 0.99891	 ? -??0.00574	 ? -??0.00846	 ? 0.04227	 ? 2.59927	 ?1394	 ? 1.00280	 ? -??0.01015	 ? -??0.00256	 ? 0.04919	 ?u'u'	 ?(m-??2	 ?s-??2)	 ? 1393	 ? 1.02985	 ? -??0.00901	 ? 0.01121	 ? 0.03736	 ? 0.70542	 ?1394	 ? 1.00395	 ? 0.00110	 ? 0.00409	 ? 0.04711	 ?u'w'	 ?(m-??2	 ?s-??2)	 ? 1393	 ? 0.99989	 ? -??0.00033	 ? -??0.00031	 ? 0.01078	 ? -??0.11404	 ?1394	 ? 1.03891	 ? -??0.00080	 ? -??0.00559	 ? 0.01232	 ?v'v'	 ?(m-??2	 ?s-??2)	 ? 1393	 ? 0.97068	 ? 0.00480	 ? -??0.00995	 ? 0.01933	 ? 0.51080	 ?1394	 ? 1.02711	 ? -??0.00231	 ? 0.01242	 ? 0.02494	 ?v'w'	 ?(m-??2	 ?s-??2)	 ? 1393	 ? 0.93731	 ? 0.00351	 ? 0.00505	 ? 0.00896	 ? -??0.02230	 ?1394	 ? 1.00223	 ? 0.00182	 ? 0.00176	 ? 0.00762	 ?w'w'	 ?(m-??2	 ?s-??2)	 ? 1393	 ? 1.01042	 ? 0.00046	 ? 0.00233	 ? 0.00643	 ? 0.18711	 ?1394	 ? 1.02871	 ? -??0.00008	 ? 0.00571	 ? 0.00819	 ?w'T'	 ?(K	 ?m-??1	 ?s-??1)	 ? 1393	 ? 1.03152	 ? 0.00012	 ? 0.00039	 ? 0.00409	 ? 0.009561	 ?1394	 ? 1.03336	 ? -??0.00040	 ? -??0.00009	 ? 0.00479	 ?T'T'	 ?(K2)	 ? 1393	 ? 1.00606	 ? 0.00111	 ? 0.00184	 ? 0.00937	 ? 0.12582	 ?1394	 ? 1.00851	 ? -??0.00102	 ? -??0.00004	 ? 0.00983	 ?Skew	 ?u	 ? 1393	 ? 0.90993	 ? 0.03891	 ? 0.01397	 ? 0.07393	 ? 0.27496	 ?1394	 ? 0.82419	 ? 0.06935	 ? 0.02226	 ? 0.09121	 ?Skew	 ?v	 ? 1393	 ? 0.95072	 ? 0.02620	 ? 0.02384	 ? 0.06831	 ? 0.04972	 ?1394	 ? 0.88830	 ? 0.00365	 ? -??0.00324	 ? 0.08427	 ?Skew	 ?w	 ? 1393	 ? 0.96794	 ? -??0.00615	 ? -??0.01354	 ? 0.08097	 ? 0.13024	 ?1394	 ? 0.63227	 ? 0.01794	 ? -??0.03138	 ? 0.06079	 ?Skew	 ?T	 ? 1393	 ? 0.98517	 ? -??0.00553	 ? -??0.00527	 ? 0.06234	 ? -??0.03131	 ?1394	 ? 0.94224	 ? -??0.02531	 ? -??0.02296	 ? 0.09481	 ?TKE	 ?(m2	 ?kg-??1	 ?s-??2)	 ? 1393	 ? 1.04064	 ? -??0.01425	 ? 0.00549	 ? 0.05744	 ? 0.55195	 ?1394	 ? 1.04542	 ? -??0.01115	 ? 0.01627	 ? 0.06155	 ? 	 ? 	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?15	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?Appendix	 ?2	 ??	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ?post-??processing	 ?software	 ? Appendix	 ?2	 ?compares	 ?output	 ?from	 ?the	 ?EPiCC	 ?eddy-??covariance	 ?data	 ?processing	 ?code	 ?developed	 ?and	 ?used	 ?at	 ?UBC	 ?Geography	 ?(ubc_mmd.app,	 ?Version	 ?3.04,	 ?EPiCC	 ?version,	 ?IDL	 ?based	 ?processing)	 ?against	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?(3.0)	 ?which	 ?is	 ?distributed	 ?by	 ?Licor,	 ?Inc.	 ?	 ?	 ?Five	 ?weeks	 ?of	 ?high-??frequency	 ?data	 ?(20	 ?Hz)	 ?measured	 ?on	 ?Sunset	 ?Tower	 ?were	 ?compared	 ?(Feb	 ?7	 ?to	 ?Mar	 ?23,	 ?2012)	 ?were	 ?processed	 ?using	 ?the	 ?settings	 ?listed	 ?in	 ?Table	 ?1	 ?and	 ?the	 ?output	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ?of	 ?sensible	 ?heat,	 ?latent	 ?heat,	 ?and	 ?carbon-??dioxide.	 ?	 ?	 ?Eddy	 ?covariance	 ?data	 ?was	 ?measured	 ?by	 ?a	 ?separate	 ?system	 ?consisting	 ?of	 ?a	 ?CSI	 ?CSAT-??3	 ?ultrasonic	 ?anemometer,	 ?a	 ?Li-??7500A	 ?(CO2/H2O	 ?open	 ?path	 ?analyzer),	 ?and	 ?Li-??7700	 ?(CH4	 ?open	 ?path	 ?analyzer,	 ?not	 ?used	 ?here),	 ?all	 ?operated	 ?at	 ?28.7	 ?m	 ?above	 ?local	 ?ground	 ?(tower	 ?base).	 ?The	 ?CSAT	 ?was	 ?pointing	 ?with	 ?its	 ?undisturbed	 ?sector	 ?towards	 ?206?	 ?from	 ?geographic	 ?North.	 ?The	 ?sensor	 ?separation	 ?between	 ?the	 ?CSAT-??3	 ?measurement	 ?volume	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Li-??7700	 ?was	 ?45	 ?cm	 ?horizontal	 ?and	 ?7	 ?cm	 ?vertical	 ?(Li-??7700	 ?is	 ?higher	 ?than	 ?CSAT-??3	 ?measurement	 ?volume)	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Li-??7500	 ?was	 ?installed	 ?to	 ?the	 ?NE	 ?(53?)	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CSAT-??3.	 ?The	 ?sensor	 ?separation	 ?between	 ?the	 ?CSAT-??3	 ?measurement	 ?volume	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Li-??7500A	 ?was	 ?35	 ?cm	 ?horizontal	 ?and	 ?0	 ?cm	 ?vertical	 ?	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Li-??7500A	 ?was	 ?installed	 ?to	 ?the	 ?North	 ?(356?)	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CSAT-??3	 ?volume.	 ?This	 ?system	 ?was	 ?set	 ?apart	 ?from	 ?the	 ?tower?s	 ?long-??term	 ?system	 ?(at	 ?90	 ?cm	 ?horizontal	 ?and	 ?10	 ?cm	 ?vertical	 ?distance	 ?to	 ?the	 ?measurement	 ?volume	 ?of	 ?the	 ?long-??term	 ?system).	 ?	 ?The	 ?period	 ?of	 ?the	 ?comparison	 ?was	 ?experiencing	 ?extensive	 ?periods	 ?of	 ?rain.	 ?First,	 ?the	 ?entire	 ?period	 ?was	 ?compared.	 ?Secondly,	 ?the	 ?analysis	 ?was	 ?restricted	 ?to	 ?three	 ?dry	 ?days,	 ?March	 ?6,	 ?00:30	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?24:00	 ?without	 ?rain.	 ?From	 ?both	 ?time	 ?frame	 ?all	 ?valid	 ?data	 ?was	 ?used	 ?(Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?QC	 ?=	 ?0,	 ?1	 ?or	 ?2).	 ? Table	 ?11.	 ?	 ?Summary	 ?of	 ?software	 ?Settings	 ?of	 ?the	 ?processing	 ?output	 ?	 ?  Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?Settings	 ? Settings	 ?in	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?Tilt	 ?correction	 ?(axis	 ?rotation)	 ? Double	 ?rotation	 ?(v=0,	 ?w=0)	 ? Double	 ?rotation	 ?(v=0,	 ?w=0)	 ?Detrending	 ? Block	 ?averaging	 ?	 ? Block	 ?averaging	 ?	 ?Time	 ?lag	 ?compensation	 ? None	 ? None	 ?Despiking	 ? Yes	 ? Iterative,	 ?for	 ?limits	 ?described	 ?in	 ?this	 ?report	 ?(Section	 ??High	 ?frequency	 ?spike	 ?detection?	 ?Statistical	 ?tests	 ? Absolute	 ?limits,	 ?skewness	 ?and	 ?kurtosis	 ? Absolute	 ?limits,	 ?skewness	 ?and	 ?kurtosis	 ?with	 ?boundaries	 ?described	 ?in	 ?Table	 ?5	 ?Tests	 ?for	 ?Analyzer	 ?Quality	 ? Yes	 ? AGC	 ?test	 ?for	 ?Li-??7500A.	 ?Only	 ?data	 ?when	 ?signal	 ?strength	 ?>	 ?20%	 ?for	 ?Li-??7500	 ?Compensations	 ?for	 ?density	 ?fluctuations	 ? Webb-??Pearman-??Leuning	 ?(open	 ?path)	 ? Webb-??Pearman-??Leuning	 ?(open	 ?path)	 ?Sonic	 ?temperature	 ?correction	 ?for	 ?humidity	 ? van	 ?Dijk	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2004)	 ? Yes	 ?(based	 ?on	 ?Schotanus	 ?et	 ?al.,	 ?1983)	 ?Filtering	 ?of	 ?flow	 ?distortion	 ? None	 ? Remove	 ?data	 ?from	 ?disturbed	 ?sector	 ?from	 ?block	 ?average	 ?	 ?Angle	 ?of	 ?attack	 ?corrections	 ? Yes	 ? No	 ?Spectral	 ?corrections	 ? Yes	 ?(standard)	 ? Sensor	 ?separation	 ?only	 ?(Moore,	 ?1986)	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?16	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?   Table	 ?12	 ?-?? Comparison	 ?between	 ?fluxes	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?for	 ?the	 ?full	 ?period	 ?of	 ?February	 ?7	 ?to	 ?March	 ?11,	 ?2012	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?a	 ?linear	 ?regression	 ?with	 ?Slope	 ?and	 ?r2,	 ?and	 ?expressed	 ?as	 ?median	 ?absolute	 ?difference	 ?(MedAE).	 ?Values	 ?is	 ?brackets	 ?are	 ?the	 ?error	 ?estimates	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?the	 ?average	 ?flux	 ?in	 ?the	 ?given	 ?period.	 ?Data	 ?includes	 ?all	 ?data	 ?that	 ?was	 ?outputted	 ?with	 ?various	 ?quality	 ?flags.  	 ? Slope	 ? r2	 ? MedAE	 ? MedAE	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?average	 ?flux	 ?Sensible	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?(W	 ?m-??2)	 ? EddyPro	 ?=	 ?1.008	 ?*	 ?UBC	 ? r2	 ?=	 ?0.990	 ? 0.60	 ?W	 ?m-??2	 ?	 ? 2.2%	 ?Latent	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?(W	 ?m-??2)	 ? EddyPro	 ?=	 ?1.038	 ?*	 ?UBC	 ? r2	 ?=	 ?0.960	 ? 0.51	 ?W	 ?m-??2	 ? 1.7%	 ?CO2	 ?Flux	 ?(?mol	 ?m-??2	 ?s-??1)	 ? EddyPro	 ?=	 ?1.003	 ?*	 ?UBC	 ? r2	 ?=	 ?0.989	 ? 0.30	 ??mol	 ?m-??2	 ?s-??1	 ?	 ? 1.4%	 ? Table	 ?13	 ?-??	 ?Comparison	 ?between	 ?fluxes	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?for	 ?the	 ?dry	 ?period	 ?of	 ?March	 ?6	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?2012	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?a	 ?linear	 ?regression	 ?with	 ?Slope	 ?and	 ?r2,	 ?and	 ?expressed	 ?as	 ?median	 ?absolute	 ?difference	 ?(MedAE).	 ?Values	 ?is	 ?brackets	 ?are	 ?the	 ?error	 ?estimates	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?the	 ?average	 ?flux	 ?in	 ?the	 ?given	 ?period.	 ?Data	 ?includes	 ?all	 ?data	 ?that	 ?was	 ?outputted	 ?with	 ?various	 ?quality	 ?flags.  	 ? Slope	 ? r2	 ? MedAE	 ? MedAE	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?average	 ?flux	 ?Sensible	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?(W	 ?m-??2)	 ? EddyPro	 ?=	 ?1.015	 ?*	 ?UBC	 ? r2	 ?=	 ?0.999	 ? 0.58	 ?W	 ?m-??2	 ?	 ? 1.2%	 ?Latent	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?(W	 ?m-??2)	 ? EddyPro	 ?=	 ?1.039	 ?*	 ?UBC	 ? r2	 ?=	 ?0.997	 ? 0.63	 ?W	 ?m-??2	 ? 3.2%	 ?CO2	 ?Flux	 ?(?mol	 ?m-??2	 ?s-??1)	 ? EddyPro	 ?=	 ?1.016	 ?*	 ?UBC	 ? r2	 ?=	 ?0.996	 ? 0.34	 ??mol	 ?m-??2	 ?s-??1	 ?	 ? 1.7%	 ?EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?17	 ?/	 ?22 	 ? Figure	 ?6	 ?-??	 ?Comparison	 ?between	 ?sensible	 ?heat	 ?fluxes	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?for	 ?the	 ?three	 ?day	 ?period	 ?of	 ?March	 ?6	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?2012.	 ?Includes	 ?all	 ?data	 ?with	 ?QC	 ?0,	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2.	 ? y"="1.0152x"R?"="0.9994".100.0".50.0"0.0"50.0"100.0"150.0"200.0"250.0"300.0"350.0".50.0" 0.0" 50.0" 100.0" 150.0" 200.0" 250.0" 300.0" 350.0"Eddy$Pro$So)ware$Output$(W$m42)$UBC$So)ware$Output$(W$m42)$Sensible$Heat$Flux$(W$m42),$$all$data$March$6$4$8,$2012$EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?18	 ?/	 ?22 	 ? Figure	 ?7	 ?-??	 ?Comparison	 ?between	 ?latent	 ?heat	 ?fluxes	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?for	 ?the	 ?three	 ?day	 ?period	 ?of	 ?March	 ?6	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?2012.	 ?Includes	 ?all	 ?data	 ?with	 ?QC	 ?0,	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2.	 ?y"="1.0391x"R?"="0.99701"-50"-30"-10"10"30"50"70"90"110"130"150"-50" -30" -10" 10" 30" 50" 70" 90" 110" 130" 150"Eddy$Pro$So)ware$Output$(W$m42)$UBC$So)ware$Output$(W$m42)$Latent$Heat$Flux$(W$m42),$all$data$March$6$4$8$,$2012$EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?19	 ?/	 ?22 	 ? Figure	 ?8	 ?-??	 ?Comparison	 ?between	 ?carbon-??dioxide	 ?mass	 ?fluxes	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?for	 ?the	 ?three	 ?day	 ?period	 ?of	 ?March	 ?6	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?2012.	 ?Includes	 ?all	 ?data	 ?with	 ?QC	 ?0,	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2.	 ? y"="1.0164x"R?"="0.996"-60"-40"-20"0"20"40"60"80"100"-60" -40" -20" 0" 20" 40" 60" 80" 100"Eddy$Pro$So)ware$Output$(?mol$m52$s51)$UBC$So)ware$Output$(?mol$m52$s51)$CO2$Flux$(?mol$m52$s51),$all$data$March$6$5$8,$2012$EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?20	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?  Figure	 ?9	 ?-??	 ?Time	 ?series	 ?of	 ?sensible	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?(UBC,	 ?blue	 ?triangles)	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?(red	 ?circles)	 ?for	 ?the	 ?three	 ?day	 ?period	 ?of	 ?March	 ?6	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?2012.	 ?? ?   Figure	 ?10	 ?-??	 ?Time	 ?series	 ?of	 ?latent	 ?heat	 ?flux	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?(UBC,	 ?blue	 ?triangles)	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?(red	 ?circles)	 ?for	 ?the	 ?three	 ?day	 ?period	 ?of	 ?March	 ?6	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?2012.	 ?!100.0%!50.0%0.0%50.0%100.0%150.0%200.0%250.0%300.0%350.0%06.03.2012%00:00%06.03.2012%06:00%06.03.2012%12:00%06.03.2012%18:00%07.03.2012%00:00%07.03.2012%06:00%07.03.2012%12:00%07.03.2012%18:00%08.03.2012%00:00%08.03.2012%06:00%08.03.2012%12:00%08.03.2012%18:00%09.03.2012%00:00%W"m$2"March"6$8,"2012"UBC%Eddy%Pro%!50$0$50$100$150$200$250$06.03.2012$00:00$06.03.2012$06:00$06.03.2012$12:00$06.03.2012$18:00$07.03.2012$00:00$07.03.2012$06:00$07.03.2012$12:00$07.03.2012$18:00$08.03.2012$00:00$08.03.2012$06:00$08.03.2012$12:00$08.03.2012$18:00$09.03.2012$00:00$W"m$2"March"6$8,"2012"UBC$Eddy$Pro$EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?21	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?  Figure	 ?11	 ?-??	 ?Time	 ?series	 ?of	 ?carbon-??dioxide	 ?(CO2)	 ?flux	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?ubc_mmd.app	 ?(UBC,	 ?blue	 ?triangles)	 ?and	 ?Eddy	 ?Pro	 ?(red	 ?circles)	 ?for	 ?the	 ?three	 ?day	 ?period	 ?of	 ?March	 ?6	 ?to	 ?March	 ?8,	 ?2012.	 ?   !150%!100%!50%0%50%100%150%06.03.2012%00:00%06.03.2012%06:00%06.03.2012%12:00%06.03.2012%18:00%07.03.2012%00:00%07.03.2012%06:00%07.03.2012%12:00%07.03.2012%18:00%08.03.2012%00:00%08.03.2012%06:00%08.03.2012%12:00%08.03.2012%18:00%09.03.2012%00:00%?mol%m&2%s&1%March%6&8,%2012%UBC%Eddy%Pro%EPiCC	 ?Technical	 ?Report	 ?1	 ??	 ?Processing	 ?and	 ?quality	 ?control	 ?of	 ?turbulent	 ?fluxes	 ? Page	 ?22	 ?/	 ?22 	 ?References	 ?	 ?Campbell	 ?Scientific,	 ?Inc	 ?(2009).	 ?CSAT3	 ?Instruction	 ?Manual,	 ?Revision	 ?7/09.	 ?http://www.campbellsci.com/documents/manuals/csat3.pdf	 ?	 ?LI-??COR	 ?Inc.	 ?(2004).	 ?LI-??7500	 ?Instruction	 ?Manual,	 ?Revision	 ?4.	 ?ftp://ftp.licor.com/perm/env/LI-??7500/Manual/LI-??7500Manual_V4.pdf	 ?	 ?Christen	 ?A.,	 ?van	 ?Gorsel	 ?E.,	 ?Vogt	 ?R.,	 ?M.	 ?Andretta	 ?and	 ?M.	 ?W.	 ?Rotach	 ?(2001):	 ?Ultrasonic	 ?Anemometer	 ?Instrumentation	 ?at	 ?Steep	 ?Slopes:	 ?Wind	 ?Tunnel	 ?Study	 ?-??	 ?Field	 ?Intercomparison	 ?-??	 ?Measurements.	 ?MAP	 ?Newsletter	 ?15.	 ?164-??167	 ?	 ?Finnigan,	 ?J.J.,	 ?R.	 ?Clement,	 ?Y.	 ?Malhi,	 ?R.	 ?Leuning,	 ?and	 ?H.A.	 ?Cleugh	 ?(2002).	 ?A	 ?re-??evaluation	 ?of	 ?long-??term	 ?flux	 ?measurement	 ?techniques,	 ?Part	 ?I:	 ?Averaging	 ?and	 ?coordinate	 ?rotation.	 ?Boundary-??Layer	 ?Meteorology,	 ?107,	 ?1-??48.	 ?	 ?	 ?Hollinger,	 ?D.Y.,	 ?F.M.	 ?Kelliher,	 ?J.N.	 ?Byers,	 ?J.E.	 ?Hunt,	 ?T.M.	 ?McSeveny,	 ?P.L.	 ?Weir	 ?(1994)	 ?Carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?exchange	 ?between	 ?an	 ?undisturbed	 ?old-??growth	 ?temperate	 ?forest	 ?and	 ?the	 ?atmosphere.	 ?Ecology,	 ?75,.1,	 ?134-??150.	 ?	 ?McMillen,	 ?R.T.	 ?(1988).	 ?	 ?An	 ?eddy	 ?correlation	 ?technique	 ?with	 ?extended	 ?applicability	 ?to	 ?non-??simple	 ?terrain.	 ?Boundary-??Layer	 ?Meteorology,	 ?43,	 ?231-??245.	 ?	 ?Moore,	 ?C.J.	 ?(1986).	 ?	 ?Frequency	 ?response	 ?corrections	 ?for	 ?eddy	 ?correlation	 ?systems.	 ?	 ?Boundary-??Layer	 ?Meteorology,	 ?37,	 ?17-??35.	 ?	 ?Schotanus,	 ?P.,	 ?F.T.M.	 ?Nieuwstadt,	 ?H.A.R.	 ?Bruin	 ?(1983).	 ?	 ?Temperature	 ?measurement	 ?with	 ?a	 ?sonic	 ?anemometer	 ?and	 ?its	 ?application	 ?to	 ?heat	 ?and	 ?moisture	 ?fluxes.	 ?	 ?Boundary-??Layer	 ?Meteorology,	 ?26,	 ?81-??93.	 ?	 ?Vickers,	 ?D.	 ?and	 ?L.	 ?Mahrt	 ?(1997).	 ?Quality	 ?control	 ?and	 ?flux	 ?sampling	 ?problems	 ?for	 ?tower	 ?and	 ?aircraft	 ?data.	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Atmospheric	 ?and	 ?Oceanic	 ?Technology,	 ?14,	 ?512-??526.	 ?	 ?	 ?Webb,	 ?E.K.,	 ?G.I.	 ?Pearman,	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?Leuning	 ?(1980).	 ?Correction	 ?of	 ?flux	 ?measurements	 ?for	 ?density	 ?effects	 ?due	 ?to	 ?heat	 ?and	 ?water	 ?vapour	 ?transfer.	 ?Quarterly	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Royal	 ?Meteorological	 ?Society,	 ?106,	 ?85-??100.	 ?	 ?

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0103593/manifest

Comment

Related Items