-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: The error of the surface sensible heat flux being > 2 orders of magnitude too large is solved and was due to me foolishly neglecting brackets around the denominator in the equation for CH.
It thus seems like the flux can at least be somewhat estimated this way (although the correlation with the flux from the output is still surprisingly low, especially for cases with stable stratification).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
I am trying to calculate the surface sensible heat flux from ERA5. However, although my resulting flux has relatively similar spatial patterns, it is more than two orders of magnitude too large, compared to the heat flux directly available in the output (the reason I’m not using the fluxes from the output is because in a later step, I want to calculate fluxes for fixed surface temperatures, to separate atmospheric from surface influences). Of course the error(s) can result from many different things, but when I change the variables slightly to see what happens, I always end up with a largely similar (ca 2 orders of magnitude too large) flux. This seems to suggest that it might be an error related to units, or, that my method is rubbish and can’t be applied in this way.
...