• Energy Research

List of Ameriflux, AON and FLUXNET sites contained in this dataset and their corresponding siteid's and doi's: CA-SCB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498754), FI-Lom (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440228), GL-NuF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440222), GL-ZaF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440223), GL-ZaH (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440224), RU-Che (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440181), RU-Cok (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440182), RU-Sam (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440185), RU-Tks (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440244), RU-Vrk (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440245), SE-St1 (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440187), SJ-Adv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440241), SJ-Blv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440242), US-A03 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498752), US-A10 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498753), US-An1 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246142), US-An2 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246143), US-An3 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246144), US-Atq (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246029), US-Brw (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246041), US-EML (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1418678), US-HVa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246064), US-ICh (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246133), US-ICs (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246130), US-ICt (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246131), US-Ivo (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246067), US-NGB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1436326), US-Upa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246108), US-xHE (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617729), US-xTL (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617739). Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models.This dataset describes the environmental conditions for 64 tundra and glacier sites (>=60°N latitude) across the Arctic, for which in situ measurements of surface energy budget components were harmonized (see Oehri et al. 2022). These environmental conditions are (proxies of) potential drivers of SEB-components and could therefore be called SEB-drivers. The associated environmental conditions, include the vegetation types graminoid tundra, prostrate dwarf-shrub tundra, erect-shrub tundra, wetland complexes, barren complexes (≤ 40% horizontal plant cover), boreal peat bogs and glacier. These land surface types (apart from boreal peat bogs) correspond to the main classification units of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM, Raynolds et al. 2019). For each site, additional climatic and biophysical variables are available, including cloud cover, snow cover duration, permafrost characteristics, climatic conditions and topographic conditions.

AbstractDespite the importance of high-latitude surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the rapidly changing Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. Here, we harmonize SEB observations across a network of vegetated and glaciated sites at circumpolar scale (1994–2021). Our variance-partitioning analysis identifies vegetation type as an important predictor for SEB-components during Arctic summer (June-August), compared to other SEB-drivers including climate, latitude and permafrost characteristics. Differences among vegetation types can be of similar magnitude as between vegetation and glacier surfaces and are especially high for summer sensible and latent heat fluxes. The timing of SEB-flux summer-regimes (when daily mean values exceed 0 Wm−2) relative to snow-free and -onset dates varies substantially depending on vegetation type, implying vegetation controls on snow-cover and SEB-flux seasonality. Our results indicate complex shifts in surface energy fluxes with land-cover transitions and a lengthening summer season, and highlight the potential for improving future Earth system models via a refined representation of Arctic vegetation types.

Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In-situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models. Therefore, we here provide four datasets comprising:1. Harmonized, standardized and aggregated in situ observations of SEB components at 64 vegetated and glaciated sites north of 60° latitude, in the time period 1994-20212. A description of all study sites and associated environmental conditions, including the vegetation types, which correspond to the classification of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM, Raynolds et al. 2019).3. Data generated in a literature synthesis from 358 study sites on vegetation or glacier (>=60°N latitude) covered by 148 publications.4. Metadata, including data contributor information and measurement heights of variables associated with Oehri et al. 2022. Code underlying the dataset and publication is available in a Github repository and can be accessed at: https://github.com/oehrij/ArcticSEBSynthesis

This dataset contains the hourly gap-filled meteorological data at nine Greenland Climate Network (GC-Net) stations: Crawford Point 1 (CP1), Dye-2, NASA-SE, Saddle, South Dome, NASA-E, NASA-U, Summit, Tunu-N for the period 1998-2017. Meteorological variables include: air temperature at 2 meters (m) height, relative humidity at 2 m height, wind speed at 10 m height, atmospheric pressure and adjusted snow fall rate from surface height sounder . The dataset also includes surface energy budget components: upward and downward shortwave and longwave radiative fluxes, sensible and latent heat fluxes (and subsequently sublimation/deposition), conductive heat flux into the subsurface, surface temperature and surface melt. These data were prepared for, and fully described in Vandecrux et al. (2020, https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2020.30). For their calculation, raw data from the GC-Net stations (available at http://cires1.colorado.edu/steffen/gcnet/) were filtered from erroneous measurements and gap-filled using either nearby automatic weather stations or adjusted RACMO2.3p2 regional climate model output. Downward longwave radiation is not monitored by the GC-Net stations and is therefore directly taken from RACMO2.3p2. Upward shortwave radiation was gap-filled using gap-filled downward shortwave radiation and daily Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) albedo. The surface energy budget calculation uses the Monin-Obukhov similarity theory accounting for the near-surface atmosphere stratification.

List of Ameriflux, AON and FLUXNET sites contained in this dataset and their corresponding siteid's and doi's: CA-SCB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498754), FI-Lom (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440228), GL-NuF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440222), GL-ZaF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440223), GL-ZaH (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440224), RU-Che (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440181), RU-Cok (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440182), RU-Sam (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440185), RU-Tks (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440244), RU-Vrk (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440245), SE-St1 (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440187), SJ-Adv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440241), SJ-Blv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440242), US-A03 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498752), US-A10 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498753), US-An1 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246142), US-An2 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246143), US-An3 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246144), US-Atq (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246029), US-Brw (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246041), US-EML (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1418678), US-HVa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246064), US-ICh (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246133), US-ICs (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246130), US-ICt (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246131), US-Ivo (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246067), US-NGB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1436326), US-Upa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246108), US-xHE (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617729), US-xTL (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617739). Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models.This dataset contains metadata information about surface energy budget components measured at 64 tundra and glacier sites >60° N across the Arctic. This information was taken from the open-access repositories FLUXNET, Ameriflux, AON, GC-Net and PROMICE. The contained datasets are associated with the publication vegetation type as an important predictor of the Arctic Summer Land Surface Energy Budget by Oehri et al. 2022, and intended to support research of surface energy budgets and their relationship with environmental conditions, in particular vegetation characteristics across the terrestrial Arctic.

List of Ameriflux, AON and FLUXNET sites contained in this dataset and their corresponding siteid's and doi's: CA-SCB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498754), FI-Lom (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440228), GL-NuF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440222), GL-ZaF (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440223), GL-ZaH (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440224), RU-Che (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440181), RU-Cok (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440182), RU-Sam (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440185), RU-Tks (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440244), RU-Vrk (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440245), SE-St1 (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440187), SJ-Adv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440241), SJ-Blv (https://doi.org/10.18140/FLX/1440242), US-A03 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498752), US-A10 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1498753), US-An1 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246142), US-An2 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246143), US-An3 (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246144), US-Atq (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246029), US-Brw (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246041), US-EML (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1418678), US-HVa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246064), US-ICh (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246133), US-ICs (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246130), US-ICt (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246131), US-Ivo (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246067), US-NGB (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1436326), US-Upa (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1246108), US-xHE (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617729), US-xTL (https://doi.org/10.17190/AMF/1617739). Despite the importance of surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. In situ observational data of SEB components - useful for research and model validation - are collected at relatively few sites across the terrestrial Arctic, and not all available datasets are readily interoperable. Furthermore, the terrestrial Arctic consists of a diversity of vegetation types, which are generally not well represented in land surface schemes of current Earth system models.This dataset comprises harmonized, standardized and aggregated in-situ observations of surface energy budget components measured at 64 sites on vegetated and glaciated sites north of 60° latitude, in the time period from 1994 till 2021. The surface energy budget components include net radiation, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, ground heat flux, net shortwave radiation, net longwave radiation, surface temperature and albedo, which were aggregated to daily mean, minimum and maximum values from hourly and half-hourly measurements. Data were retrieved from the monitoring networks FLUXNET, AmeriFlux, AON, GC-Net and PROMICE.