Premium
Ground heat flux: An analytical review of 6 models evaluated at 88 sites and globally
Author(s) -
Purdy A. J.,
Fisher J. B.,
Goulden M. L.,
Famiglietti J. S.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: biogeosciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-8961
pISSN - 2169-8953
DOI - 10.1002/2016jg003591
Subject(s) - fluxnet , evapotranspiration , environmental science , sensible heat , range (aeronautics) , energy balance , latent heat , flux (metallurgy) , meteorology , climatology , heat flux , atmospheric sciences , heat transfer , geography , eddy covariance , physics , ecosystem , geology , thermodynamics , ecology , materials science , metallurgy , composite material , biology
Uncertainty in ground heat flux ( G ) means that evaluation of the other terms in the surface energy balance (e.g., latent and sensible heat fluxes ( LE and H )) remains problematic. Algorithms that calculate LE and H require available energy, the difference between net radiation, R NET , and G . There are a wide range of approaches to model G for large‐scale applications, with a subsequent wide range of estimates and accuracies. We provide the largest review of these methods to date ( N = 6), evaluating modeled G against measured G from 88 FLUXNET sites. The instantaneous midday variability in G is best captured by models forced with net radiation, while models forced by temperature show the least error at both instantaneous and daily time scales. We produce global decadal data sets of G to illustrate regional and seasonal sensitivities, as well as uncertainty. Global model mean midmorning instantaneous G is highest during September, October, and November at 63.42 (±16.84) Wm −2 , while over December, January, and February G is lowest at 53.86 (±18.09) Wm −2 but shows greater intermodel uncertainty. Results from this work have the potential to improve evapotranspiration estimates and guide appropriate G model selection and development for various land uses.