1995
DOI: 10.1007/bf00708934
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flux determination over a smooth surface under strongly unstable conditions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Assuming that current parameterizations of canopy effects on the radiation balance and surface energy budget in land surface schemes are adequate, the ability of climate models to accurately predict such influences will rely heavily on suitable representation of surface characteristics (canopy architecture and albedo) of boreal regions prefire and postfire. For smooth surfaces, under strongly unstable conditions, the profile method tends to overestimate sensible heat fluxes [ Sugita et al , 1995]. Roughness lengths for heat and momentum directly affect sensible heat fluxes (and thus boundary layer development) and, through changes in the wind speed profile, fluxes of moisture and other scalars [ Holtslag and Ek , 1996].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assuming that current parameterizations of canopy effects on the radiation balance and surface energy budget in land surface schemes are adequate, the ability of climate models to accurately predict such influences will rely heavily on suitable representation of surface characteristics (canopy architecture and albedo) of boreal regions prefire and postfire. For smooth surfaces, under strongly unstable conditions, the profile method tends to overestimate sensible heat fluxes [ Sugita et al , 1995]. Roughness lengths for heat and momentum directly affect sensible heat fluxes (and thus boundary layer development) and, through changes in the wind speed profile, fluxes of moisture and other scalars [ Holtslag and Ek , 1996].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Re u z     (Nikuradse, 1933, Sugita et al, 1995, so that only rough surface observations were chosen. The value of a = 0.032 clearly falls within the range of previous proposals of a = 0.012 -0.035 (e.g., Garratt 1992) and was used for our analysis, and for the discussion provided below, although the value is higher than the commonly assumed value of a = 0.011 used for the ocean (e.g., Fairall et al 1996Fairall et al , 2003.…”
Section: Wavesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The form was used of the function for C h of Brutsaert (1992) obtained using both of the proposals of Kader and Yaglöm (1990), and the analysis of Hög-ström (1988) for the atmospheric conditions, since the result of Sugita et al (1995) showed that Brutsaert's function was applicable under strong unstable stability conditions. The general form of C h can be written as …”
Section: Appendix a Footprint Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%