Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 7147–7152, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7147-2021
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 7147–7152, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7147-2021

Research article 12 Nov 2021

Research article | 12 Nov 2021

Field testing two flux footprint models

Trevor W. Coates et al.

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-106', Albrecht Neftel, 12 Jul 2021
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Flesch, 02 Sep 2021
  • RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-106', Thomas Foken, 01 Aug 2021
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Flesch, 02 Sep 2021

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Thomas Flesch on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2021)  Author's response    Author's tracked changes    Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Sep 2021) by Christof Ammann
AR by Thomas Flesch on behalf of the Authors (28 Sep 2021)  Author's response    Author's tracked changes    Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (12 Oct 2021) by Christof Ammann
AR by Thomas Flesch on behalf of the Authors (19 Oct 2021)  Author's response    Manuscript
Download
Short summary
A field study tested two footprint models for calculating surface emissions from downwind flux measurements. Emission rates from a 10 × 10 m synthetic source were estimated with the simple Kormann–Meixner model and a sophisticated Lagrangian stochastic model. Both models underestimated emissions by approximately 30 %, and no statistical differences were observed between the models. Footprint models are critically important for interpreting eddy covariance measurements.