Upload
dwight-bryan
View
220
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Quality control for Sonic Data Spike Removal Insufficient Amplitude Resolution Drop outs Absolute Limits Skewness and Kurtosis Discontinues- Haar mean, Haar var. Lag Correlation – Not used. Vertical Profile – Not used.
Citation preview
LBA Flux Tower Workshop
Software Intercomparison
Celso von RandowGanabathula Prasad
CPTEC/INPE
December 2001
Quality control – Vickers & Mahrt (1997) Flux sampling problems – Mahrt (1998)
Surface heterogeneity, complex terrains Nonstationarity Random Flux Errors Systematic underestimation of low
frequency fluxes Sensitivity of flux calculations Results of intercomparison among LBA
flux measurements
Software intercomparison
Quality control for Sonic Data Spike Removal Insufficient Amplitude Resolution Drop outs Absolute Limits Skewness and Kurtosis Discontinues- Haar mean, Haar var. Lag Correlation – Not used. Vertical Profile – Not used.
Spike Removal Electronic spikes to have a max. width
of 3 consecutive points in the time series and more than 3.5 standard deviations from the window mean (L=3000 points =5min@10Hz)
The point is replaced using linear interpolation between data points.
The record is flagged when the total number of spikes replaced exceeds 1% of the total number of data points
Insufficient Amplitude Resolution Compute a series of discrete frequency
distributions for half-overlapping windows of length 1,000 data points
The window move one-half the window width at a time through the series
the number of bins is 100 and the interval for the distribution is min(range, 7).
Flagged if number of empty bins in the discrete frequency distribution >70%
Amplitude Resolution
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
32.2
32.21
32.22
32.23
32.24
32.25
32.26
32.27
32.28
32.29
32.3
time(minutes)
H 2O (m
mol
/m)
Santarem km67 file E1150700
Drop outs Consecutive points that fall into the same
bin are tentatively identified as dropouts Max no of consecutive dropouts as % of
total window points same window and frequency
distributions used for the resolution problem
if bin is within 10% and 90% tentiles of distribution, compare with threshold.
Drop out
5 10 15 20 25 30
298.2
298.3
298.4
298.5
298.6
298.7
298.8
298.9
299
Time(minutes)
T (K
)
Jaru 213, 21:30
Absolute Limits |u|> 30 m/s |v| > 30m/s |w| > 5 m/s T < 275 K (2 C) & T> 323 K (50 C) H2O< 2 & H2O> 40 g/kg
Skewness and Kurtosis
Detrend record Skewness [-2 2] (Empirical value) Kurtosis [1 8] (Empirical value)
Discontinuites Haar transform of window Normalize with the smallest S.D. Discontinuity if Haar mean >3
15 16 17 18 19 20
298.5
298.6
298.7
298.8
298.9
299
299.1
299.2
299.3
time (minutes)
T (K
)
Jaru 216, 20:30 Discontinutite Haar mean=3.2
Flux Sampling Errors
Systematic Error: failure to capture all the largest transporting eddies– underestimation of flux.
Random Error: Inadequate sampling of main transporting eddies, inadequate record size.
Mesoscale variability: inhomogeneity of flow. Dependence of flux on choice of scale.
Systematic Error
Relative Systematic Error:
< w’’>L2 - < w’’>L1 < Th < w’’>L1
Random Error
Partition record into non overlapping subrecords (i=1,2,…)
Average Flux Fi=<Fi> +Ftr + F*i
Ftr = a0 + a1t using a Least Squares fit. RFE = F* |<Fi>| -1 N-0.5
RN = Ftr |<Fi>| -1 N-0.5
Flux Event
Measure of Isolated flux event:
Max(Fi) |<Fi>| -1
Fi is the aver sub-record flux<Fi> is the record mean value of Fi
Preliminary Results on Santarem km67Day 267 No of Records 44 RFE RN EVT RSE FSRWU 5 3 48 1 0WV 45 9 48 34 15WT 6 5 48 3 0WH2O 18 6 48 11 0
Sensitivity of flux calculations
Averaging time scales Rotations Block averaging / Linear detrending /
Recursive digital filter Low frequency corrections Uncertainties
LBA tower sites Rondônia
Rebio Jaru forest – Primary forest Fazenda Nossa Senhora) - Pasture
Manaus Tower K34 – Primary forest Tower C14 – Primary forest
Santarém Tower Km 67 – Primary forest Tower km 83 – Logged forest
(primary) Tower km 77 – Pasture site
LBA tower sites Caxiuanã
Primary forest Brasília
Cerrado Campo Sujo (Biennial fire regime) Campo Sujo (Quadriennial fire
regime) Mato Grosso
Sinop Forest Bragança
Mangrove Venezuela – Savanna site
Venezuela
Softwares used in intercomparison
Rondônia, Manaus – EddyWSC v.2 (Alterra) 3 rotations; Digital recursive filter (800 s time constant); Low frequency corrections
Vickers & Mahrt Software (Oregon St. Univ.) 2 rotations; Block averaging Discard records with high random flux errors and
nonstationarity
+ Softwares used in LBA flux sites
Santarém, km 83 – EddyWSC v.1 (Alterra) 3 rotations; Digital recursive filter (200 s time constant);
Santarém, km 67 – CD-10 Program (Harvard Univ.)
Santarém, Pasture – CD-03 Program (ASRC, Albany)
Caxiuanã – Edisol (Univ. of Edinburgh) Brasília – EddySoft package (MPI)
3 rotations; Linear detrending;
Venezuela – Edisol (Univ. of Edinburgh)
Caxiuanã
y = 0.9953xR2 = 0.9951
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Fc (EddyWSC) (W/m2)
Fc (E
diso
l) (m
mol
/m2 /s
)Edisol x EddyWSC
Rebio Jaru - Wet Season period
y = 0.9759xR2 = 0.9366
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Fc V & M (mmol/m2/s)
Fc e
ddyW
SC (m
mol
/m2 /s
)EddyWSC x Vickers & Mahrt Software
Rebio Jaru - Wet Season period
y = 0.9937xR2 = 0.974
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
LE V & M (W/m2)
LE e
ddyW
SC (W
/m2 )
Rebio Jaru - Dry Season period
y = 0.9494xR2 = 0.7616
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fc V & M (mmol/m2/s)
Fc e
ddyW
SC (m
mol
/m2 /s
)
Rebio Jaru - Dry Season period
y = 0.9422xR2 = 0.9488
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
LE V & M (W/m2)
LE e
ddyW
SC (W
/m2)
Manaus km 34 - Wet Season period
y = 1.0361xR2 = 0.9512
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Fc (V & M)
Fc e
ddyW
SC
Manaus km 34 - Wet Season period
y = 1.0206xR2 = 0.9634
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
LE (V & M)
LE e
ddyW
SC
Santarem km67 - Wet season period
y = 1.0248xR2 = 0.9766
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
w-c covariance (Vickers & Mahrt software)
w-c
cov
. (C
D-1
0 pr
ogra
m)
CD-10 x Vickers & Mahrt Software
~ dry season
Santarem km67 - Wet season period
y = 1.0342xR2 = 0.9752
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
w-q covariance (Vickers & Mahrt software)
w-q
cov
. (C
D-1
0 pr
ogra
m)
~ dry season
Santarem km67 - Wet season period
y = 0.9387xR2 = 0.9615
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
w-T covariance (Vickers & Mahrt software)
w-T
cov
. (C
D-1
0 pr
ogra
m)
CD-04 x EddyWSC
Santarem km83
y = 0.8965xR2 = 0.9962
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Fc (EddyWSC v.2) (mmol/m2/s)
Fc (E
ddyW
SC v
.1) (
m mol
/m2 /s
)
200 s x 800 s time constant
Santarem km83
y = 0.8137xR2 = 0.9956
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
LE (EddyWSC v.2)
LE (E
ddyW
SC)
Santarem Pasture - Wet season period
y = 0.7667xR2 = 0.7927
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
w-c covariance (Vickers & Mahrt software)
w-c
cov
. (C
D-0
3 pr
ogra
m)
CD-03 x Vickers & Mahrt Software
Santarem Pasture - Wet season period
y = 0.8085xR2 = 0.7887
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
w-c covariance (EddyWSC)
w-c
cov
. (C
D-0
3 pr
ogra
m)
CD-03 x EddyWSC
Brasília - Cerrado - Wet season
y = 0.8982xR2 = 0.9934
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Fc (EddyWSC)
Fc (E
ddyf
lux
pack
age)
Eddysoft package x EddyWSC~ dry season
Brasília - Campo Sujo (biennial) - Dry season
y = 0.8564xR2 = 0.9265
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fc (EddyWSC)
Fc (E
ddyf
lux
pack
age)
Brasília - Campo Sujo (Quadriennial) - Dry season
y = 0.8623xR2 = 0.9705
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fc (EddyWSC)
Fc (E
ddyf
lux
pack
age)
Venezuela
y = 0.6309xR2 = 0.9378
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fc (EddyWSC) (mmol/m2/s)
Fc (E
diso
l) (m
mol
/m2 /s
)Venezuela (Edisol) x EddyWSC
Venezuela
y = 0.5453xR2 = 0.9652
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-50 0 50 100 150 200
LE (EddyWSC) (W/m2)
LE (E
diso
l) (W
/m2 )
In summary... Fluxes calculated by different LBA groups might give
quite different values specially considering different parameters (averaging time scale; corrections; etc)
As fluxes calculations in complex terrains are very sensitive to parameters like rotations and averaging time scales, LBA groups should be VERY CAREFUL when integrating or comparing measurements from different groups.
Softwares used by a few groups (Rondonia/Manaus, Santarém km 67, Caxiuanã/Bragança) agree within + 6 %.
Softwares used by groups CD-03, CD-04, Brasilia and Venezuela calculated substantially lower fluxes than other programs (averaging time scales ? corrections ? )
Acknowledgements
Jair F. MaiaMaria Betânia L. de OliveiraPaulo Kubota
Suggestions for (near) future Continue software intercomparison
Put together a “golden” data set that can be run by each group on their own program;
Integration of measurements on large scale Standardize software parameters ?
How do the differences are reflected in long term budgets ? Are the differences the same in positive
(respiration) and negative (assimilation) fluxes ?
To be continued ...