| description abstract | Radiometric surface temperature observations TR(?), near-surface meteorological/surface energy flux (METFLUX), and atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) data were collected during the Washita ?94 Experiment conducted in the Little Washita Experimental Watershed near Chickasha, Oklahoma. The TR(?) measurements were made from ground and aircraft platforms near the METFLUX stations located over vegetated surfaces of varying amounts of cover and over bare soil. Continuous, half-hourly averaged ground-based TR(?) measurements essentially at the point scale were calibrated with periodic ground transect and aircraft-based TR(?) observations at coarser resolutions so that the continuous TR(?) measurements would be representative of surface temperatures at the field scale (i.e., on the order of 104 m2). The METFLUX data were collected nominally at 2 m above the surface, while ABL measurements were made in the lower 8?10 km of the atmosphere. The ?local? wind speed, u, and air temperature, TA, from the METFLUX stations, as well as the mixed-layer wind speed, UM, and potential temperature, ΘM, were used in a two-source energy balance model for computing fluxes with continuous TR(?) measurements from the various surfaces. Standard Monin?Obukhov surface layer similarity was used with the ?local? u and TA data from the METFLUX stations. Bulk similarity approaches were used with the UM and ΘM data referenced either to ABL height or the top of the surface layer. This latter approach of using mixed-layer data to drive model computations for the different sites is similar to the so-called flux-aggregation schemes or methods proposed to account for subgrid variability in atmospheric models, such as the?tile? or ?mosaic? approach. There was less agreement between modeled and measured fluxes when using mixed-layer versus local meteorological variables data for driving the model, and the type of bulk formulation used (i.e., whether local or regional surface roughness was used) also had a significant impact on the results. Differences between the flux observations and model predictions using surface layer similarity with local u and TA data were about 25% on average, while using the bulk formulations with UM and ΘM differences averaged about 30%. This larger difference was caused by an increase in biases and scatter between modeled and measured fluxes for some sites. Therefore, computing spatially distributed local-scale fluxes with ABL observations of mixed-layer properties will probably yield less reliable flux predictions than using local meteorological data, if available. Given the uncertainty in flux observations is about 20%, these estimates are still considered reasonable and moreover permit the mapping of spatially distributed surface fluxes at regional scales using a single observation of UM and ΘM with high resolution TR(?) data. Such TR(?) observations with a 90-m pixel resolution will be available from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer to be launched on NASA?s Earth Observing System. | |
