Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
AMT
Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7147-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-7147-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
Research article
 | 
12 Nov 2021
Research article |  | 12 Nov 2021

Field testing two flux footprint models

Trevor W. Coates, Monzurul Alam, Thomas K. Flesch, and Guillermo Hernandez-Ramirez

Viewed

Total article views: 2,133 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
1,481 576 76 2,133 262 67 74
  • HTML: 1,481
  • PDF: 576
  • XML: 76
  • Total: 2,133
  • Supplement: 262
  • BibTeX: 67
  • EndNote: 74
Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Jun 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Jun 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,133 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,050 with geography defined and 83 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 23 Apr 2025
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.
Read more
Share