Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
siteEC150 S/N

Lab H2O bias

g/m3

(from N2 zero)

Lab H2O gain

Field H2O bias

g/m3

28May

Lab CO2 bias

mg/m3

(from (N2 zero)

Lab CO2 gain

Field CO2 bias

mg/m3

28May

tnw021233-0.391.000.0-90.99+7
tnw051384-0.960.93-2.4-290.93-25
tnw091392+0.340.97-0.7-140.97-4
tse0113850.311.06-0.4+91.01+6
tse021383-0.10.80-0.4-92.02(!)-4
tse051386**-0.31.03+0.8-101.00+40
tse071387/1389?0.35/0.020.94/0.96+0.2-15/-60.98/0.99+16
tse121390x0.92-1.0-11.000
rsw04Li813

+3.6

+13
rne011807 (can't be right – 1432?)0.190.93-0.551.02-2
rne06Li1166

+3.0

-10
rne071388-0.060.96-0.7-140.96+4
v011386**-0.31.03+0.3-101.00-5
v031433x0.96+0.3-10
-20
v04Li1167





v06Li1164

+3.4

+13
v07Li1163

+3.6

+8


So...we have a mess:

  • 3 EC150 serial numbers aren't known
  • Haven't (yet) done lab tests of the LiCors
  • Of the comparables, less than half agree between lab and field
  • Only 2 EC150s have good comparisons with both H2O and CO2
  • The LiCor H2O values all have a large offset from the EC150, they are about 2 g/m3 higher than TRH
  • EC150.tnw02 used as the H2O reference is about 1.5 g/m3 lower than TRH.  Even the highest EC150 value (tse05) is lower than the TRH by at least 0.5 g/m3.
  • Even during the "well mixed" 28 May 21:00-23:00 case, TRH values vary by +/-0.4 g/m3, so a cross-site comparison can't be accurate.
  • The good news: after 29May, the biases appear to be about constant.  (There was a change in the period 26–29 May.)
    • Licors, using v07 as a reference:
      • before 26 May rsw04, v04, and v06 had biases of +0.2, -0.3, +0.3, respectively
      • after 26 May, these had biases of 0.5,1.3, 0.0, respectively
    • EC150s, using tse07 as a reference: biases are about constant throughout
  • 28May 21-23; 14 Jun 01-03; 22May 21-23; (but really want night cases – lots of wind, no local uptake...)
  • No labels