1996
DOI: 10.1016/0168-1923(95)02248-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
1,113
2
13

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,474 publications
(1,173 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
11
1,113
2
13
Order By: Relevance
“…It is however questionable whether the method used can adequately separate the turbulent signal from the instrumental noise in the case of the G2311-f for which the overall noise level was very small. For comparison, the standard deviations (Foken and Wichura, 1996). Flag 0 (flux stationarity below 0.3) corresponds to the highest quality, flag 1 (flux stationarity between 0.3 and 1) to medium quality and flag 2 to the lowest quality (flux stationarity above 1).…”
Section: Random Errors and Instrumental Noisementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is however questionable whether the method used can adequately separate the turbulent signal from the instrumental noise in the case of the G2311-f for which the overall noise level was very small. For comparison, the standard deviations (Foken and Wichura, 1996). Flag 0 (flux stationarity below 0.3) corresponds to the highest quality, flag 1 (flux stationarity between 0.3 and 1) to medium quality and flag 2 to the lowest quality (flux stationarity above 1).…”
Section: Random Errors and Instrumental Noisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This threshold was used for all CH 4 fluxes. The fluxes were distributed into three quality classes based on a flux stationarity test (Foken and Wichura, 1996). If the test yielded values smaller than 0.3, the fluxes were given quality flag 0 (highest quality), fluxes with test values between 0.3 and 1 were given flag 1 (medium quality) and if the test yielded values above 1, then the fluxes were flagged with 2 (low quality).…”
Section: Flux Data Filtering and Quality Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The third part of the program performs a planar fit coordinate rotation (Wilczak et al 2001), correction of spectral loss (Moore 1986), and conversion of buoyancy into sensible heat flux (Schotanus et al 1983;Liu et al 2001). Lastly, a post-field quality control (Rebmann et al 2005), a steady state test (Foken and Wichura 1996) and a test for integral turbulence characteristics (Foken and Wichura 1996;Thomas and Foken 2002) were performed.…”
Section: Field Observation and Data Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…covariance, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and all fluxes) by applying reasonable physical consistency limits. An overall quality classification strategy (Foken and Wichura, 1996;Foken et al, 2004) combining steady-state test and the integral turbulence characteristics test marked the derived 30-min fluxes with overall quality flags of 7-9 as low-quality data, and marked the flux data with flags of 1-6 as high-quality data for further analysis. The diagnostic signals (i.e.…”
Section: Generation Of High-quality Databasementioning
confidence: 99%