Editorial Type:
Corrigendum
Article Type:
Correction

CORRIGENDUM

Benjamin D. Reineman Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California

Search for other papers by Benjamin D. Reineman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Luc Lenain Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California

Search for other papers by Luc Lenain in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Nicholas M. Statom Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California

Search for other papers by Nicholas M. Statom in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
W. Kendall Melville Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California

Search for other papers by W. Kendall Melville in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Dec 2013
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00212.1
Page(s):
2954
A related article is available
Full access

In the final processing of Reineman et al. (2013), the appearance of Fig. 17 on p. 1313 was inadvertently altered. Figure 17 appears below as it was meant to be shown.

Fig. 17.
Fig. 17.

Sample time series of variables measured by the ScanEagle Flux payload, at an altitude of 32.4 ± 3.1 m AGL over the Potomac River on 13 Apr 2012, showing (a) vertical wind; (b) water vapor concentration, as measured by the krypton hygrometer; and (c) temperature, as measured by the optical sensor (low-pass filtered with a 4-Hz-cutoff Butterworth filter). Positive correlation between vapor concentration and vertical wind can be seen (most notably in the times outlined in gray rectangles), implying positive vertical transport of water vapor and therefore positive latent heat. (d) Scatterplot of turbulent water vapor against turbulent vertical wind. Turbulent vapor flux can be calculated with the mean of the products of these quantities; shown is that calculated from the 90-s segment shown in (a)–(c). Plus and minus symbols show the sign of contribution to the flux within each quadrant. Water vapor flux is also quantified using integrated cospectra in Fig. 18b (see section 4c). Correlation between temperature and vertical wind is less pronounced, corresponding to the small and variable fluxes seen in Fig. 18c.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 30, 12; 10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00212.1

The staff of the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology regrets any inconvenience this error may have caused.

REFERENCE

Reineman, B. D., Lenain L. , Statom N. M. , and Melville W. K. , 2013: Development and testing of instrumentation for UAV-based flux measurements within terrestrial and marine atmospheric boundary layers. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 30, 1295–1319.

  • Search Google Scholar
  • Export Citation
Save
Cover Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology

  • Reineman, B. D., Lenain L. , Statom N. M. , and Melville W. K. , 2013: Development and testing of instrumentation for UAV-based flux measurements within terrestrial and marine atmospheric boundary layers. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 30, 1295–1319.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • <sc>Fig</sc>. 17.
    View in gallery
    Fig. 17.

    Sample time series of variables measured by the ScanEagle Flux payload, at an altitude of 32.4 ± 3.1 m AGL over the Potomac River on 13 Apr 2012, showing (a) vertical wind; (b) water vapor concentration, as measured by the krypton hygrometer; and (c) temperature, as measured by the optical sensor (low-pass filtered with a 4-Hz-cutoff Butterworth filter). Positive correlation between vapor concentration and vertical wind can be seen (most notably in the times outlined in gray rectangles), implying positive vertical transport of water vapor and therefore positive latent heat. (d) Scatterplot of turbulent water vapor against turbulent vertical wind. Turbulent vapor flux can be calculated with the mean of the products of these quantities; shown is that calculated from the 90-s segment shown in (a)–(c). Plus and minus symbols show the sign of contribution to the flux within each quadrant. Water vapor flux is also quantified using integrated cospectra in Fig. 18b (see section 4c). Correlation between temperature and vertical wind is less pronounced, corresponding to the small and variable fluxes seen in Fig. 18c.

Fig. 17.

Sample time series of variables measured by the ScanEagle Flux payload, at an altitude of 32.4 ± 3.1 m AGL over the Potomac River on 13 Apr 2012, showing (a) vertical wind; (b) water vapor concentration, as measured by the krypton hygrometer; and (c) temperature, as measured by the optical sensor (low-pass filtered with a 4-Hz-cutoff Butterworth filter). Positive correlation between vapor concentration and vertical wind can be seen (most notably in the times outlined in gray rectangles), implying positive vertical transport of water vapor and therefore positive latent heat. (d) Scatterplot of turbulent water vapor against turbulent vertical wind. Turbulent vapor flux can be calculated with the mean of the products of these quantities; shown is that calculated from the 90-s segment shown in (a)–(c). Plus and minus symbols show the sign of contribution to the flux within each quadrant. Water vapor flux is also quantified using integrated cospectra in Fig. 18b (see section 4c). Correlation between temperature and vertical wind is less pronounced, corresponding to the small and variable fluxes seen in Fig. 18c.
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 502 236 19
PDF Downloads 76 15 4