uncertainty in eddy covariance datasets dario papale, markus reichstein, antje moffat, ankur desai,...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Uncertainty in eddy covariance datasets
Dario Papale, Markus Reichstein, Antje Moffat, Ankur Desai, many others..
Raw data (20 Hz)
Half hourly data
Half hourly, daily, monthly, annual data
Filtering (u*, spike, qc) and corrections (storage)
Errors or uncertainties??
Gap filling
Partitioning
A
BC
Footprint problems
Advection
Tower setup
ADVEX
Goeckede et al. in prep
IMECC
Corrections, filtering, etc.
IMECC
Random errors
Richardson et al.
This is not uncertainty,this is an error
This is uncertainty
Sites and years used
Papale et al. 2006
A – Uncertainty due to quality check and filtering
Difference between minimum and maximum value obtained at different time resolution using different correction setting (u* thresholds, spike thresholds, storage measurement)
NEE
Papale et al. 2006
A – Uncertainty due to quality check and filtering
Uncertainty due to different corrections settings (u* thresholds, spike thresholds, storage measurement) at annual scale.
< 100 gC m-2 (50 gC m-2)
Papale et al. 2006
A – Uncertainty due to quality check and filtering
GPP
Uncertainty due to different corrections settings (u* thresholds, spike thresholds, storage measurement) at annual scale.
~/< 100 gC m-2 (5-10%)
Papale et al. 2006
A – Uncertainty due to quality check and filtering
TER
Uncertainty due to different corrections settings (u* thresholds, spike thresholds, storage measurement) at annual scale.
~/< 100 gC m-2 (5-10%)
Moffat et al. 2007
B – Uncertainty due to gapfilling (15 methods, 50 artificial gaps scenarios)
RMSE for different sites and different methods (50 scenarios)
Richardson et al. 2006
B – Uncertainty due to gapfilling & random errors in the half hourly data
Richardson et al. estimated the random errors in eddy covariance measurements comparing data acquired by two systems in the same footprint and also comparing half hourly data acquired at the same site, under the same meteorological conditions but at different time.
Random error frequency distribution for three different US sites (double-exponential distribution)
Moffat et al. 2007
B – Uncertainty due to gapfilling
MAE boxplot of the different techniques and random uncertainty estimation using Richardson et al. method
B – Uncertainty due to gapfilling
Moffat et al. 2007
RMSE in function of different methods and gaps length
At annual bases the average uncertainty introduced by the “good” methods has been estimated to be +/- 25 gC m-2 year-1
Desai et al. 2007, in press
C – Uncertainty due to partitioning (23 methods, 10 artificial gaps scenario)
GPP and RE boxplot for each dataset using all the methods. Large part of the methods are in about 100 gC m.2 yr-1
Desai et al. 2007, in press
C – Uncertainty due to partitioning
Annual sun bias due to artificial gaps. Each boxplot is based on 10 gaps scenarios
Desai et al. 2007, in press
C – Uncertainty due to partitioning
GPP and RE monthly boxplot
RE GPP
Conclusions
Big effort is ongoing to assess uncertainty in the eddy covariance measurements in CarboeuropeIP and other projects.
There are uncertain assumptions in all steps of data acquisition and processing
Standardization of data processing helps to reduce uncertainty particularly in multi sites synthesis analysis
There is still a lot to do in the uncertainty definition due for example to advection and footprint
We need to discuss with the modeling community about how to incorporate the uncertainty in the measurement in the model parameterization
top related