Earth science, surface energy balance

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the equivalent loss of stored soil liquid water using the surface energy balance equation Q* = QH + QE + QG, where QH is sensible heat flux, QE is latent heat flux, and QG is ground heat flux. Participants emphasize the need for context, specifically the hourly-averaged energy balance data from a grassland study in Alberta. The goal is to determine the total loss of soil water over a 24-hour period, converting the energy fluxes into millimeters using the density of liquid water. The provided data includes hourly measurements of energy balance components, essential for the calculations. Understanding these terms and the context is crucial for accurately addressing the problem.
suedenation
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Given the equation Q* = QH + QE + QG and the corresponding data (all fluxes in [W/m²]). How can I find the equivalent loss of stored soil liquid water expressed in [mm] (Note: the conversion factor is the density of liquid water, i.e. 1000 kg/m^3)

Thanks very much for your help!:confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, what do you mean by QH, QE, QG? Can you tell us what the terms mean in your equation?

Also, you need to give the question in it's full context.
 
i'm sorry, the question is about surface energy balance. Given Q* = QH + QE + QG, QH = sensible heat flux, QE = latent heat flux and QG = ground heat flux. (All fluxes in [W/m²]) and the table below, I've to calculate the 24 hour totals equivalent loss of stored soil liquid water expressed in [mm] (note: the conversion factor is the density of liquid water, i.e. 1000 kg/m^3)
Table 1: Daily cycle in hourly-averaged energy balance components over grassland in Alberta.
1 July 2003. (All fluxes in W m¡2; data courtesy of Dr. L. Flanagan; file flanagan.txt)End time [MDT]
hr Q¤ QG QH QE
1 -77 -17 -117 23
2 -68 -17 -67 11
3 -38 -25 2 -2
4 -37 -29 2 -2
5 -31 -27 -5 -1
6 34 -19 -26 2
7 134 -4 3 72
8 262 13 42 136
9 312 28 60 212
10 438 31 99 272
11 518 45 162 315
12 632 65 213 316
13 633 68 208 339
14 595 61 200 347
15 563 54 167 337
16 347 34 73 278
17 311 28 53 230
18 209 13 -35 139
19 81 1 -52 111
20 -15 -5 -44 55
21 -62 -11 -103 23
22 -63 -14 -106 17
23 -62 -14 -77 12
0 -66 -15 -101 19
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top