A simple two-dimensional parameterisation for Flux Footprint Prediction (FFP)

Kljun, N.; Calanca, P.; Rotach, M. W.; Schmid, H. P.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3695-2015

Articles | Volume 8, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3695-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3695-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 8, issue 11

Development and technical paper

|

17 Nov 2015

Development and technical paper |

| 17 Nov 2015

A simple two-dimensional parameterisation for Flux Footprint Prediction (FFP)

N. Kljun, P. Calanca, M. W. Rotach, and H. P. Schmid

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Nov 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Aug 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C1859: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Sep 2015
- AC C2559: 'Response to referee 1', Natascha Kljun, 20 Oct 2015
RC C2153: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Sep 2015
- AC C2560: 'Response to Referee 2', Natascha Kljun, 20 Oct 2015
RC C2236: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #3, 28 Sep 2015
- AC C2561: 'Response to Referee 3', Natascha Kljun, 20 Oct 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Natascha Kljun on behalf of the Authors (20 Oct 2015) Author's response

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (28 Oct 2015) by Jatin Kala

Dear Dr. Kljun,

All three reviewers have highlighted that this paper brings a valuable development. The comments have been adequately addressed, and i plan to accept the paper after these few minor considerations.

A reviewer raised an issue:
The scaling is performed via four dimensionless groups. The dimensionless groups do not include directly any parameters related to ABL flow characteristics such as the convective velocity scale. Have the authors considered including this velocity scale to improve (potentially) the footprint parameterization under convective conditions and would it help to explain different parameterization coefficients obtained for the convective regime (Table6)?

To which you replied:
Indeed, we have tried to include the convective velocity scale, but this did not prove to be successful. What we presented in this manuscript is the statistically best scaling approach we found and the result of research over an extended period of time.

I think it would be worth mentioning this in the manuscript (that including the convective velocity scale was not successful), as this is potentially useful information to others in the field?

With regards to code availability:
Rather than provide a link to a personal web-page, please provide a link to a repository such as github or bitbucket. The reason is that personal or even institutional web-pages often go offline, whereas actual repositories do not. On the repository site, you can of course link to your personal/institutional web-site.
Also, repositories such as github/bitbucket come with built-in version control. You should provide and/or make clear, how one can access the exact source code which was used for this paper, versus the latest version(s).

Regards,
Jatin

Hide

AR by Natascha Kljun on behalf of the Authors (30 Oct 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (03 Nov 2015) by Jatin Kala

Short summary

Flux footprint models describe the surface area of influence of a flux measurement. They are used for designing flux tower sites, and for interpretation of flux measurements. The two-dimensional footprint parameterisation (FFP) presented here is suitable for processing large data sets, and, unlike other fast footprint models, FFP is applicable to daytime or night-time measurements, fluxes from short masts over grassland to tall towers over mature forests, and even to airborne flux measurements.