ACP Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics ACP 1680-7324 Copernicus GmbH Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/acp-9-5575-2009 Comparison of conventional Lagrangian stochastic footprint models against LES driven footprint estimates Markkanen T. 1 4 Steinfeld G. 2 5 Kljun N. 3 Raasch S. 2 Foken T. 1 Department of Micrometeorology, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany Institut für Meteorologie und Klimatologie, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany Department of Geography, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales UK current address: Finnish Meteorological Institute, Climate and Global Change Research, P.O. Box 503, 00101 Helsinki, Finland current address: Department of Physics, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany 06 08 2009 9 15 5575 5586 This is an open-access article ditributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This article is available from http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/5575/2009/acp-9-5575-2009.html The full text article is available as a PDF file from http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/5575/2009/acp-9-5575-2009.pdf

In this study we introduce a comparison method for footprint model results by evaluating the performance of conventional Lagrangian stochastic (LS) footprint models that use parameterised flow field characteristics with results of a Lagrangian trajectory model embedded in a large eddy simulation (LES) framework. The two conventional models follow the particles backward and forward in time while the trajectories in LES only evolve forward in time. We assess their performance in two unstably stratified boundary layers at observation levels covering the whole depth of the atmospheric boundary layer. We present a concept for footprint model comparison that can be applied for 2-D footprints and demonstrate that comparison of only cross wind integrated footprints is not sufficient for purposes facilitating two dimensional footprint information. Because the flow field description among the three models is most realistic in LES we use those results as the reference in the comparison. We found that the agreement of the two conventional models against the LES is generally better for intermediate measurement heights and for the more unstable case, whereas the two conventional flux footprint models agree best under less unstable conditions. The model comparison in 2-D was found quite sensitive to the grid resolution.

 References Baldocchi, D.: Flux footprints within and over forest canopies, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 85, 273–292, 1997. Beare, R J., Macvean, M K., Holtslag, A. A M., Cuxart, J., Esau, I., Golaz, J.-C., Jimenez, M A., Khairoutdinov, M., Kosovic, B., Lewellen, D., Lund, T S., Lundquist, J K., Mccabe, A., Moene, A F., Noh, Y., Raasch, S., and Sullivan, P.: An Intercomparison of Large-Eddy Simulations of the Stable Boundary Layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 118, 247–272, 2006. Cai, X. and Leclerc, M.: Forward-in-time and Backward-in-time Dispersion in the Convective Boundary Layer: the Concentration Footprint, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 123, 201–218, 2007. de~Haan, P. and Rotach, M W.: A novel approach to atmospheric dispersion modelling: the Puff-particle model (PPM), Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 124, 2771–2792, 1998. Finn, D., Lamb, B., Leclerc, M Y., and Horst, T W.: Experimental evaluation of analytical and Lagrangian surface-layer footprint models, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 80, 283–308, 1996. Finnigan, J.: The footprint concept in complex terrrain, Agr. For. Meteorol., 127, 117–129, 2004. Flesch, T K.: The footprint for flux measurements, from backward Lagrangian stochastic models, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 78, 399–404, 1996. Flesch, T K., Wilson, J D., and Yee, E.: Backward-time Lagrangian stochastic dispersion models and their application to estimate gaseous emissions, J. Appl. Meteorol., 34, 1320–1332, 1995. Foken, T. and Leclerc, M Y.: Methods and limitations in validation of footprint models, Agr. For. Meteorol., 127, 223–234, 2004. Foken, T. and Wichura, B.: Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux measurements, Agric. Forest Meteorol., 78, 83–105, 1996. Foken, T., Göckede, M., Mauder, M., Mahrt, L., Amiro, B D., and Munger, J.: Post-field data quality control, in: Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis, edited by: Lee, X., Massman, W., and Law, B., 181–208, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004. Göckede, M., Markkanen, T., Hasager, C., and Foken, T.: Update of footprint-based approach for the characterisation of complex measurement sites, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 118, 635–655, 2007. Göckede, M., Foken, T., Aubinet, M., Aurela, M., Banza, J., Bernhofer, C., Bonnefond, J.-M., Brunet, Y., Carrara, A., Clement, R., Dellwik, E., Elbers, J., Eugster, W., Fuhrer, J., Granier, A., Grünwald, T., Heinesch, B., Janssens, I., Knohl, A., Koeble, R., Laurila, T., Longdoz, B., Manca, G., Marek, M., Markkanen, T., Mateus, J., Matteucci, G., Mauder, M., Migliavacca, M., Minerbi, S., Moncrieff, J., Montagnani, L., Moors, E., Ourcival, J.-M., Papale, D., Pereira, J., Pilegaard, K., Pita, G., Rambal, S., Rebmann, C., Rodrigues, A., Rotenberg, E., Sanz, M., Sedlak, P., Seufert, G., Siebicke, L., Soussana, J., Valentini, R., Vesala, T., Verbeeck, H., and Yakir, D.: Quality control of CarboEurope flux data – Part I: Coupling footprint analyses with flux data quality assessment to evaluate sites in forest ecosystems, Biogeosciences, 5, 433–450, 2008. Haenel, H D. and Grünhage, L.: Footprint analysis: a closed analytical solution based on height-dependent profiles of wind speed and eddy viscosity, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 93, 395–409, 1999. Horst, T W. and Weil, J C.: Footprint estimation for scalar flux measurements in the atmospheric surface layer, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 59, 279–296, 1992. Horst, T W. and Weil, J C.: How far is far enough?: The fetch requirements for micrometeorological measurement of surface fluxes, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 11, 1018–1025, 1994. Kim, S W., Moeng, C H., Weil, J C., and Barth, M C.: Lagrangian particle dispersion modeling of the fumigation process using large-eddy simulation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 1932–1946, 2005. Kljun, N., Rotach, M W., and Schmid, H P.: A 3D Backward Lagrangian Footprint Model for a Wide Range of Boundary Layer Stratifications, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 103, 205–226, 2002. Kljun, N., Kormann, R., Rotach, M W., and Meixer, F X.: Comparison of the Lagrangian footprint model LPDM-B with an analytical footprint model, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 106, 349–355, 2003. Kljun, N., Kastner-Klein, P., Fedorovich, E., and Rotach, M W.: Evaluation of a Lagrangian Footprint Model Using Data from a Wind Tunnel Convective Boundary Layer, Agr. For. Meteorol., 127, 189–201, 2004. Kurbanmuradov, O., Rannik, Ãœ., Sabelfeld, K K., and Vesala, T.: Direct and adjoint Monte Carlo for the footprint problem, Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, 5, 85–111, 1999. Leclerc, M Y. and Thurtell, G W.: Footprint prediction of scalar fluxes using a Markovian analysis, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 52, 247–258, 1990. Leclerc, M Y., Shen, S H., and Lamb, B.: Observations and large-eddy simulation modeling of footprints in the lower convective boundary layer, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 102, 9323–9334, 1997. Leclerc, M Y., Karipot, A., Prabha, T., Allwine, G., Lamb, B., and Gholz, H L.: Impact of non-local advection on flux footprints over a tall forest canopy: a tracer flux experiment, Agr. For. Meteorol., 115, 19–30, 2003a. Leclerc, M Y., Meskhidze, N., and Finn, D.: Comparison between measured tracer fluxes and footprint model predictions over a homogeneous canopy of intermediate roughness, Agr. For. Meteorol., 117, 145–158, 2003b. Letzel, M ., Kanda, M., and Raasch, S.: A new dimension of Urban Climate Modelling with parallel Large-eddy Simulation, in: Preprints, 6th International Conference on Urban Climate, Göteborg, Sweden, International Association for Urban Climate, 2006. Markkanen, T., Rannik, Ãœ., Marcolla, B., Cescatti, A., and Vesala, T.: Footprints and fetches for fluxes over forest canopies with varying structure and density, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 106, 437–459, 2003. Mölder, M., Klemedtsson, L., and Lindroth, A.: Turbulence and dispersion in a forest – tests of Thomson’s random-flight model., Agr. For. Meteorol., 127, 203–222, 2004. Raasch, S. and Etling, D.: Modeling deep oceanic convection: Large-eddy simulation in comparison with laboratory experiments, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 28, 1786–1802, 1998. Raasch, S. and Schröter, M.: PALM - a large-eddy simulation model performing on massively parallel computers, Meteorol. Z., 10, 363–372, 2001. Rannik, Ãœ., Aubinet, M., Kurbanmuradov, O., Sabelfeld, K K., Markkanen, T., and Vesala, T.: Footprint analysis for the measurements over a heterogeneous forest, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 97, 137–166, 2000. Rannik, Ãœ., Markkanen, T., Raittila, J., Hari, P., and Vesala, T.: Turbulence Statistics Inside and Over Forest: Influence on Footprint Prediction, Bound.-Lay. Meterol., 109, 163–189, 2003. Rebmann, C., Göckede, M., Foken, T., Aubinet, M., Aurela, M., Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C., Buchmann, N., Carrara, A., Cescatti, A., Ceulemans, R., Clement, R., Elbers, J., Granier, A., Grünwald, T., Guyon, D., Havránková, K., Heinesch, B., Knohl, A., Laurila, T., Longdoz, B., Marcolla, B., Markkanen, T., Miglietta, F., Moncrieff, J B., Montagnani, L., Moors, E., Nardino, M., Ourcvial, J.-M., Rambal, S., Rannik, Ãœ., Rotenberg, E., Sedlak, P., Unterhuber, G., Vesala, T., and Yakir, D.: Quality analysis applied on eddy covariance measurements at complex forest sites using footprint modelling, Theor. Appl. Climat., 80, 121–141, 2005. Rotach, M W., Gryning, S.-E., and Tassone, C.: A two-dimensional Lagrangian stochastic dispersion model for daytime conditions, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 122, 367–389, 1996. Schmid, H P.: Source areas for scalar and scalar fluxes, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 67, 293–318, 1994. Schmid, H P.: Experimental design for flux measurements: matching scales of observations and fluxes, Agr. For. Meteorol., 87, 179–200, 1997. Schmid, H P.: Footprint Modeling For Vegetation Atmosphere Exchange Studies: A Review and Perspective, Agr. For. Meteorol., 113, 159–183, 2002. Schmid, H P. and Oke, T R.: A model to estimate the source area contributing to turbulent exchange in the surface layer over patchy terrain, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 116, 965–988, 1990. Steinfeld, G., Raasch, S., and Markkanen, T.: Evaluation of footprints in homogeneous and inhomogeneous terrain with a Lagrangian stochastic particle model embedded into a large eddy simulation model, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 129, 225–248, 2008. Thomson, D J.: Criteria for the selection of stochastic models of particle trajectories in turbulent flows, J. Fluid Mech., 180, 529–556, 1987. Vesala, T., Kljun, N., Rannik, Ãœ., Rinne, J., Sogachev, A., Markkanen, T., Sabelfeld, K., Foken, T., and Leclerc, M.: Flux and concentration footprint modelling: State of the art, Environ. Poll., 152, 653–666, 2008. Weil, J C., Sullivan, P P., and Moeng, C.: The use of large-eddy simulations in Lagrangian particle dispersion models, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 2877–2887, 2004.