WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 45, W11422, doi:10.

1029/2009WR007900, 2009

A model of surface heat fluxes based on the theory of maximum

entropy production
J. Wang1,2 and Rafael L. Bras1,2
Received 23 February 2009; revised 4 August 2009; accepted 25 August 2009; published 19 November 2009.
[1] A model of heat fluxes over a dry land surface is proposed based on the theory of
maximum entropy production (MEP) as a special case of the maximum entropy principle
(MaxEnt). When the turbulent heat transfer in the atmospheric boundary layer is
parameterized using a Monin-Obukhov similarity model, a dissipation function or entropy
production function may be expressed in terms of the heat fluxes following the MEP
formalism. A solution of the heat fluxes can be obtained by finding the extreme of the
dissipation function under the constraint of conservation of energy for a given energy
input (i.e., net radiation) at the surface. The MEP solution of the surface heat fluxes is
tested using observations from fields experiments.
Citation: Wang, J., and R. L. Bras (2009), A model of surface heat fluxes based on the theory of maximum entropy production, Water
Resour. Res., 45, W11422, doi:10.1029/2009WR007900.

1. Introduction that need to be described probabilistically for making statistical

[2] Modeling heat fluxes remains a major challenge in the
study of energy and water balance at the land surface.
Recent studies have concluded that no single land surface
model is capable of capturing all features of the surface
energy balance under all conditions [Desborough et al.,
1996; Henderson-Sellers et al., 2003]. One major problem
is identified as nonclosure of the surface energy balance,
indicating that existing models of surface heat fluxes still
have room to improve. The difficulty is, to a large extent,
due to lack of a mature theory for nonequilibrium systems.
The classical nonequilibrium thermodynamics [de Groot
and Mazur, 1984; Kondepudi and Prigogine, 1998] is most
successful for the near-equilibrium systems, but inadequate
for the far-from-equilibrium processes [Jaynes, 1980]
including turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer.
Even though the classical treatment of turbulent transfer
in the atmosphere [Priestley, 1959] works reasonably well
in practice, further improvement in modeling the surface
energy balance needs a better tool than offered by the
classical nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
[3] The recent advances in the nonequilibrium thermo-
dynamics including the fluctuation theorem and the hypoth-
esis of maximum entropy production (MEP) [e.g., Dewar,
2005] offer fresh approaches to modeling surface fluxes.
The MEP theory is a derivative of the principle of maximum
entropy (MaxEnt) first formulated as a general method to
assign probability distributions in statistical mechanics
[Jaynes, 1957]. The theoretical foundation of MaxEnt is
Bayesian probability theory [Jaynes and Bretthorst, 2003]
where the concept of entropy is defined as a quantitative
measure of information [Shannon, 1948] for any systems
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Irvine, California, USA.
2
Formerly at Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Copyright 2009 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043-1397/09/2009WR007900
W11422
inferences. The MaxEnt states that ‘‘Out of all the possible
probability distributions which agree with the given constraint
information, select the one that is maximally noncommittal
with regard to missing information’’ [Gregory, 2005, p. 185].
The MaxEnt distribution is interpreted as the most probable
and macroscopically reproducible state among all physically
possible states. The generality and power of the MaxEnt are
rooted in the Bayesian interpretation of probability that allows
the concept of probability to be applicable to any situation
where statistical inference based on incomplete information is
sought. In that sense, the MaxEnt is much more than a physical
law. Yet, it carries physical significance. For example, the
(information) entropy, a central concept in the MaxEnt,
reduces to the familiar thermodynamic entropy for thermody-
namic systems at equilibrium [Tribus, 1961]. The link between
the information entropy and the thermodynamic entropy
becomes even more intimate and intuitive in the MEP theory
[Dewar, 2003]. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that
the entropy (production) in the MEP theory is not necessarily
related to the thermodynamic entropy (production).
[4] Since Paltridge [1975] used the MEP argument to
explain the basic patterns of global climate in terms of the
maximum rate of thermodynamic dissipation toward a
steady state, there have been a number of applications of
the MEP theory in earth and planetary climatology and
hydrodynamics [Ozawa et al., 2003]. During the last
decade, the MEP theory has been tested as an organizing
principle governing biological and ecological systems. For
example, Kleidon and Fraedrich [2004] have shown that
global biotic productivity corresponds to the states of MEP.
Juretic and Zupanovic [2003] found that the MEP may
govern the photosynthetic processes. Evidence accumulated
so far suggests that the MEP theory could explain transport
phenomena in the far from equilibrium systems over a wide
range of space and time scales [Kleidon and Schymanski,
2008]. We intend to show that the MEP not only explains the
observed behavior of nonequilibrium thermodynamic pro-
cesses, but also can provide a predictive tool in modeling the
transport processes quantitatively. This paper investigates the
1 of 15
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES
case of heat fluxes over a dry land surface as a proof-of-
concept study, which ultimately could lead to a MEP model
of surface energy balance including latent heat flux.
[5] Traditionally, ground heat flux is derived from the
gradient of soil temperature across a small depth near the
surface given the thermal conductivity of the soil materials
[e.g., Sellers, 1965]. Ground heat flux may also be derived
from the time history of skin temperature as the heat transfer
in the soil is described by a diffusion equation given the
thermal inertia of the soil materials [Wang and Bras, 1999].
Turbulent sensible heat is often derived from the gradient
of air temperature according to the well-known Monin-
Obukhov similarity theory [Monin and Obukhov, 1954].
Also based on the Monin-Obukhov similarity theory is the
flux variance model [Tillman, 1972; Katul et al., 1995]
where sensible heat flux is derived from the standard
deviation of turbulent fluctuations of air temperature (at a
single level). In these classical models, ground and sensible
heat fluxes are estimated using either single-level or multi-
ple-level temperature records (with other necessary input
parameters). As shown later in the paper, the proposed MEP
model of heat fluxes over a dry soil is different from the
existing models in that the MEP model of ground and
sensible heat fluxes does not use soil and air temperature
records if net radiation is available.
[6] The paper is organized as follows. We first review the
MEP formalism following Dewar [2005] in section 2. The
formulation and validation of the MEP solution of ground
and sensible heat fluxes is presented in section 3. Further
understanding of the partition between ground and sensible
heat fluxes from the perspective of an optimality principle is
the subject of section 4, followed by concluding remarks
(section 5).
2. MEP Formalism
[7] The details of the MEP formalism are described in
the original work of Dewar [2005]. Here we summarize
the key results that are most relevant to the proposed
MEP model below. The MEP is a derivative of the MaxEnt.
In the MaxEnt formalism, the probabilities pi of variables xi
(1  i  n where n is a positive integer) are derived by
maximizing the Shannon information entropy, SI
X
n
SI   pi ln pi ;
i¼1
subject to the constraints
X
n may not be exact since the derivation invokes a quadratic
hfk i  pi fk ðxi Þ ¼ Fk ; 1  k  m;
i¼1
where fk are functions of xi, Fk are given parameters (as the
constraints) representing available information about xi, and
m ( n) is a given integer. The brackets stand for
mathematical expectation. The MaxEnt distributions pi
can be derived by maximizing SI in equation (1) subject
to the constraints in equation (2), leading to
X
m 
pi / exp lk fk ðxi Þ ;
k¼1
W11422
where lk (1  k  m) are the Lagrange multipliers
associated with the constraints Fk, which are related through
the well known Legendre transform.
[8] The MEP theory results from the particular situation
of antisymmetric functions fk in equation (2) satisfying
fk(xi+) = fk(xi) when all potential outcomes, xi, can be
grouped in pairs (i+, i). For anti-symmetric functions
(whose physical meaning becomes clear later in the paper),
the corresponding MaxEnt distribution satisfies the generic
‘‘fluctuation theorem’’ (FT),
 X m 
piþ
¼ exp 2 lk fk ðxiþ Þ ; ð4Þ
pi k¼1
The FT implies that some microscopic states or phase space
trajectories are overwhelmingly favored over the others,
leading to macroscopic transport of heat and matter, unless
the exponent of the exponential function in equation (4) is
always close to zero.
[9] The behavior of the MaxEnt distribution for the
antisymmetric functions is determined by the properties of
the exponent of the exponential function in equation (4),
whose mathematical expectation
X
m
D2 lk Fk ; ð5Þ
k¼1
is referred to herein as the ‘‘dissipation function’’ or
‘‘entropy production function’’ for a reason explained by
Dewar [2005].
[10] D in equation (5) satisfies orthogonality conditions
[see Dewar, 2005, equations (18) and (19)], which imply
that D reaches an extremum given certain constraint on the
Fks. D is maximum when the constraint is a certain
nonlinear (e.g., quadratic) function of Fk, and minimum
when that constraint is a linear function. Therefore, ‘‘max-
imum entropy production’’ is in fact a misnomer in the
sense that D could reach either a maximum or a minimum
or a saddle point, theoretically, depending on the functional
form of the constraint on Fks. The well-known Prigogine’s
minimum entropy production theorem can be viewed as a
special case of the general linear constraint, leading to a
minimum D. Hopefully, MEP will be replaced by a more
ð1Þ suitable term in the future to avoid confusion. In the
development of MEP model below, we deal with the
situation of a linear constraint on the unknown surface heat
fluxes through the surface energy balance equation.
[11] We emphasize that the orthogonality conditions of D
ð2Þ approximation of the exponent function in equation (4).
Grinstein and Linsker [2007] argued that this approximation
implies that the orthogonality conditions are valid only for
near-equilibrium systems where Fks are close to zero [see
Grinstein and Linsker, 2007, equation (2)]. A careful
examination of Grinstein and Linsker’s derivation indicates
that Grinstein and Linsker’s conclusion is in part due to a
mathematical artifact. (It is incorrect to differentiate lk with
respect to Fn as in equation (2) of Grinstein and Linsker
[2007] because equation (15) of Dewar [2005] is only an
ð3Þ expression of lk evaluated at given ~ F. @lk/@Fn must be
obtained from equation (10) or equation (9) where S(~ F) is
2 of 15
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES
Figure 1. Graphical illustration of the toy model config-
uration. The top graph refers to z > 0, and the bottom graph
refers to z < 0. T1(z, t) and T2(z, t) are temperature at
location z and time t within the top graph and the bottom
graph, respectively. F1 and F2 are heat fluxes at the
boundary of the top graph and the bottom graph,
respectively, which are defined as positive going toward
the interior of the two media. The thermal properties of the
corresponding medium include bulk density r, specific heat
c, thermal conductivity m, thermal diffusivity k, and thermal
inertia I.
given in equation (8) of Dewar [2005]). Grinstein and
Linsker are correct that the quadratic approximation is less
accurate than hoped by Dewar [2005]. Nonetheless, the
formulation of MEP for the case of Fk not close to zero put
forward by Dewar [2005] does not invalidate the MEP
hypothesis for far from equilibrium systems. A case study of
land surface energy balance presented below provides
evidence that the MEP hypothesis may hold for a far from
equilibrium system where constitutive relations such as
turbulent heat transfer are highly nonlinear. This is a topic
for ongoing and future research.
[12] The key to apply the MEP method is to obtain an
expression of D where lk must be expressed as explicit
functions of Fk according to the Legendre transformation
once fks in equation (2) are identified. For the case of heat
exchange processes at the land surface, fk may include the
kinetic energy of molecules or turbulent eddies, etc. Iden-
tification of fk requires deep understanding of the physical
processes at a microscopic level and characterized in
mathematically tractable forms. Yet most of the microscopic
details of the physical processes, difficult to fully capture,
are irrelevant to the macroscopic observable properties.
Therefore, it is possible to find D without knowing fk
exactly. The situation is analogous to the classical equilib-
rium thermodynamics where the states of individual mole-
cules play no role in the ideal gas law. Finding D without
3 of 15
W11422
specification of fk indeed can be done for the case of land
surface energy balance, of interest in this paper. Below we
show how to use an idealized case (described as the toy
model below), where the analytical function D is known, to
formulate D involving turbulent heat flux through analogy.
3. Application of MEP in Land Surface Energy
Balance
[13] The surface heat fluxes predicted by the MEP theory
are referred to as the MEP solution of surface heat fluxes
herein. Using the MEP framework outlined above, it would
be more realistic to formulate D without getting into
microscopic details of molecular conduction in the soil
and turbulent diffusion in the air. Anticipating some com-
monality of transport processes in nonequilibrium systems,
we start by building a toy model of the surface energy
balance where heat transfer is assumed to be through
conduction. The MEP solution of the toy model not only
reveals the functional form of D, but also elucidates the
physical significance of the Lagrange multipliers when the
constraints are imposed on fluxes.
3.1. A Toy Model
[14] Consider one-dimensional heat conduction in one
(vertical) semi-infinite column (labeled 1) on top of the
other (labeled 2) with different thermal properties. Figure 1
illustrates the configuration of the system. A source of heat
is located at the interface z = 0 with a prescribed input heat
flux F0 varying with time. Conservation of energy requires
F0 to be distributed between two heat fluxes into the two
columns, F1 and F2, which are defined as positive when
heat flows away from the interface. F1 and F2 can be
determined by solving the corresponding diffusion equa-
tions governing the heat transfer within the media as
described in Appendix A. An analytical solution of F1
and F2 is given in equations (A25) and (A26),
Ik
Fk ¼ F0 ; k ¼ 1; 2;
I1 þ I2
where I1 and I2 are the thermal inertia of the two media
defined in equation (A19), respectively.
[15] The solution of Fk (k = 1, 2) can be obtained without
solving the differential equations. It is straightforward to
verify that the exactly the same solution of Fk results from
minimizing D defined as
2F12 2F22
D þ ; ð6Þ
I1 I2
under the constraint equation (A9), i.e., F1 + F2 = F0, with
lk in equation (5) expressed as
Fk
lk ¼ ; k ¼ 1; 2; ð7Þ
Ik
which is recognized as the orthogonality conditions given
by Dewar [2005, equations (18) and (19)].
[16] The physical meaning of lk becomes clear once Fk is
expressed in terms of temperature at the interface [Wang
and Bras, 1999]
Zt
Ik dTk ðt; 0Þ
Fk ¼ pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; k ¼ 1; 2 ð8Þ
p tt
0
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

where Tk(t, 0) is the surface temperature and t is the [20] Following the eddy diffusivity defined in equation
integration variable. Comparing equation (8) with equation (B12) and the proposed extremum solution based on the
(7) reveals that lk is the half-order time derivative of the MOST summarized in Table B1, we obtain an expression of
temperature at the interface. The validity of the MEP Ia ,
argument is confirmed by the physical reality of a
continuous distribution of temperature throughout the two pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
kzg 6 16 1
columns at all times. The straightforward application of the Ia ¼ rCp C1 kz C2 jHj  I0 jHj6 ; ð10Þ
rCp T0
MEP demonstrates its power in deriving highly nontrivial
results from seemingly trivial propositions.
[17] The toy model is an example where the concept of where r, Cp, k, g and z carry their usual meanings, and T0 is
‘‘entropy production’’ is not related to the production of a reference temperature. C1 and C2 are coefficients related
thermodynamic entropy expressed as the ratio of flux to to the universal constants in the empirical functions (a, b,
temperature that the term ‘‘MEP’’ may allude to. g 1 and g 2 in Table B1) representing the effect of the stability
on the mean profiles of wind speed and (potential)
3.2. Ground and Sensible Heat Fluxes Over Dry Soil temperature within the surface layer [Businger et al., 1971],
[18] Consider the energy budget over a dry nonvegetated  pffiffiffi
land surface. The major difference between the above toy 3=a; unstable
C1 ¼
model and the energy budget over a land surface is due to 2=ð1 þ 2aÞ; stable
the transport mechanism, i.e., heat transfer in the atmo- 
g 2 =2; unstable
sphere results from turbulent diffusion instead of conduction C2 ¼
2b; stable:
in solid media. Yet it remains true that the temperature is
continuous at the land-atmosphere interface. Since this I0 defined in equation (10),
property plays a key role in the MEP solution of the heat
fluxes in the toy model, the energy budget over a dry land
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1

surface is expected to be solved in the same way using the kzg 6

I0 ¼ rCp C1 kz C2 ; ð11Þ
MEP framework. By analogy, the dissipation function of rCp T0
ground and sensible heat fluxes, G and H, is defined as
is referred to as the ‘‘apparent thermal inertia of the air,’’
2G2 2H 2 only depends on external parameters such as z and T0. Note
D þ ; ð9Þ that1 I0 does not have the same unit as Is due to the factor of
Is Ia
jHj6 in the expression of Ia that does have the same unit as
where Is is the thermal inertia for heat conduction in the soil that of Is. It is important to point out that parameterization of
as a composition of density, specific heat and thermal Ia based on equation (B11) by no mean implies linearity
diffusivity. Ia is the ‘‘thermal inertia’’ for turbulent heat between heat flux and temperature gradient, which is true
transfer in the air. Is is a well-defined physical property of only for conduction. Turbulent heat flux in general is a
the soil material, while Ia is yet to be defined. nonlinear function of the corresponding temperature
[19] Assuming Ia has the same composition as Is defined gradient, leading to a flux-dependent thermal inertia
in equation (A19), an eddy diffusivity must be parameter- parameter.
ized using a turbulent transfer model where an eddy [21] The dissipation function D with Ia parameterized in
diffusivity appears as the coefficient formally relating the terms of equation (10) is
turbulent heat flux to the gradient of mean (potential)
temperature. The most successful models of turbulent trans- 2G2 2H 2 1
D¼ þ jHj6 ; ð12Þ
port in the atmospheric boundary layer are those based on Is I0
Monin-Obukhov similarity theory (MOST) [e.g., Arya,
1988]. In the original MOST, two dimensionless equations which is not quadratic in H. Minimizing D under the
are established to relate the gradients of mean temperature constraint of conservation of energy at the land surface,
and wind velocity to the fluxes of heat and momentum
according to the Buckingham p theorem [Buckingham, G þ H ¼ Rn ; ð13Þ
1914]. Consequently, the eddy diffusivity must be expressed
in terms of two of the four state variables (i.e., the gradients of for a given net radiation Rn requires
mean wind velocity and temperature and the fluxes of heat
and momentum). Our goal is to reduce the degree of freedom 11 Is 1
G¼ H j H j6 : ð14Þ
from two to one so that Ia can be formulated as a function of 12 I0
the heat flux alone. This can be done by using an extremum
solution based on the MOST briefly described in Table B1 in Substituting equation (14) into equation (13) leads to a
Appendix B. The extremum solutions were derived by nonlinear algebraic equation for H,
removing the nonuniqueness in the relationships between
wind shear/temperature gradient and momentum/heat flux 11 Is 1

described by the similarity equations, equations (B1) and H j H j6 þH ¼ Rn : ð15Þ

12 I0
(B2). The extremum hypothesis leads to a third equation
linking wind shear, temperature gradient, momentum flux G and H according to equations (14) and (15) are the MEP
and heat flux, allowing any three of the four parameters to be solution of the energy budget over a dry land surface.
expressed in terms of the other [Wang and Bras, 2009].
4 of 15
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES
Figure 2. Observed energy balance Rn = G + H for (a) Owens Lake and (b) Lucky Hill.
[22] The solution of H, hence G, is unique since equation
(15) has only one real root for realistic values of the
parameters (i.e., Is, I0 and Rn). G and H have the same sign
according to equation (14) following the usual sign con-
vention for G and H. As a special case, H = 0 and G = 0
when Rn = 0.
[23] Equation (14) would be formally identical to equa-
tion (7) were not for the 11/12 factor. The difference is due
to the fact that D defined in equation (12) is not a quadratic
function of G and H, while D in equation (6) for the toy
model is a quadratic function of Fk. This numerical example
suggests that the orthogonality conditions given by Dewar
[2005], which hold exactly for near-equilibrium systems,
are indeed a good approximation for far from equilibrium
systems. Equation (14) without the 11/12 coefficient is
recognized as the formula obtained by Priestley [1959, p.
105, equation (8.10)] based on the classical theory,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi   [26] Figures 3 and 4 compare the MEP solutions of G and
H rCp KH Ia
¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ : ð16Þ
G rs cs ks Is
The MEP theory justifies Priestley’s result based on a more
fundamental principle except that Priestley’s equation is
difficult to apply without the parameterization of KH based
on the newly derived extremum solution of MOST
summarized in Table B1. The new parameterization of KH
based on the equations given in Table B1 is briefly
described in the end of Appendix B. To our knowledge,
there has been no application of Priestley’s formula in land
surface models.
3.3. Validation of the MEP Solution
[24] The MEP solution of G and H in equations (14) and
(15) will be compared with observations from two field
experiments at Owens Lake, California in 1993 and at
Lucky Hill near Tombstone, Arizona in 2008. The measured
energy balance at the two sites is shown in Figure 2.
3.3.1. Owens Lake
[25] The data at this bare soil site was collected during 20
June to 2 July 1993. Sensible heat flux was measured using
an eddy covariance device, including a sonic anemometer
mounted at z = 2.5 m above the ground, colocated with
other sensors to measure radiative fluxes, ground heat flux,
soil skin temperature among other variables. Twenty minute
averaged variables are used in this study. More details about
5 of 15
W11422
the experiment site, instrument setup, sampling schemes,
etc. have been reported in an earlier publication [Katul,
1994]. Thermal inertia of the soil material at this location
was estimated as the (regression) coefficient in equation (8),
Is ’ 0.83  103 J m2 K1 s1/2, using the independently
measured skin temperature and ground heat flux. I0, defined
in equation (10), is computed as

0:35  103 ; unstable
I0 ’
0:23  103 ; stable:
where T0 = 300 K is used. It turns out that I0 is insensitive to
T0 due to the 1/6 power dependence. For example, the
extreme diurnal variation of temperature T0  280 – 330 K
at the two sites causes no more than 3% change in I0, which
is small enough to be negligible. The observed energy
balance at this site is shown in Figure 2a.
H with the observed fluxes. The agreement is excellent. In
Figure 3, the MEP G and H are computed with the observed
Rn as input to equation (15). In Figure 4, the MEP G and H
are computed with the observed total fluxes, G + H, to
replace Rn in equations (15). Since the observed energy
balance is closed without significant biases (see Figure 2a),
the agreement between the two MEP solutions (under
different inputs) are comparable to that between observed
Rn and G + H. In addition, the agreement between the MEP
predictions and the observed fluxes is as good during the
nighttime as during the daytime. Notice the observed G and
H (as well as Rn not shown here) cross zeroes at the same
times predicted by the MEP. The second test using the
Lucky Hill data demonstrates the behavior of the MEP
solution when the observed energy balance has some biases.
3.3.2. Lucky Hill
[27] The site (31°44.5640N, 110°3.2510W) is located in
the Walnut Gulch watershed, Arizona. The field experiment
was carried out 2– 17 June 2008 during the premonsoon
season with strong insolation and occasional clouds. An
instrument tower was set up at a flat spot with sparse dry
shrubs. The topsoil layer of tens of centimeters was com-
pletely dry after an extended rain-free period. Ground heat
flux was measured using heat flux plates placed  1 cm
below the surface. The observed energy balance at this site
is shown in Figure 2b. Skin temperature was measured
using an infrared thermometer mounted on the tower  1 m
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

Figure 3. (a) Time series of the MEP solution of G and H (dashed lines) versus the observed fluxes
(solid lines) with the observed Rn as the input to equation (15); MEP solution of (b) G and (c) H versus
observations. Twenty minute average data collected at Owens Lake, California, 20 June to 2 July 1993.

above the ground. Sensible heat fluxes were derived from
10 Hz samples of a RM Young sonic anemometer and a
temperature sensor mounted at z = 4.3 m above the ground.
Four components of radiative fluxes were measured using
Epply Precision Spectral Pyranometers and Precision Infra-
red Radiometers (Pyrgeometers). All variables were sam-
pled at 0.1 Hz except those measured by the eddy
covariance device. Twenty minute averaged variables are
used below. The thermal inertia of the soil at this site has
been estimated as Is ’ 0.83  103 J m2 K1 s1/2, in the
same way as that at Owens Lake. I0 is computed as

0:50  103 ; unstable
I0 ’
0:33  103 ; stable:
[28] Figure 5 compares the MEP predictions with the
observed fluxes corresponding to the case of Figure 3. They
agree qualitatively but have visible differences. The MEP G
has reduced diurnal amplitudes relative to, but in phase with
6 of 15
the observed G (Figures 5a and 5b). According to Figure 2b,
the observed Rn is underestimated at high Rn, and over-
estimated at low Rn relative to the observed G + H. Figure
5b shows that these biases in the observed energy budget
lead to the same biases in the MEP G relative to the
observed G due to the energy balance constraint. Figure
5b confirms G in phase with Rn predicted by the MEP (the
scatterplot of the observed G versus Rn not shown). Figure
5c shows the biases as well as phase differences between the
MEP H and the observed H. The biases in the MEP H are
due to the same reason for those in the MEP G. The phase
differences, which do not exist between the MEP and
observed G, are caused by the phase differences between
the observed Rn and H (figure not shown) since the MEP
predicts H in phase with Rn (e.g., peaking at the same
times). This test demonstrates that the MEP is able to use
the available information effectively to pick up true signals
and highlight the inconsistency in the inputs.
[29] Using the observed total flux G + H input, the MEP
G and H are in much closer agreement with the observed G
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

Figure 4. (a) Time series of the MEP solution of G and H (dashed lines) versus the observed fluxes
(solid lines) with the observed total fluxes G + H as the input to equation (15) (to replace Rn); MEP
solution of (b) G and (c) H versus observations. Same data set as that of Figure 3.

and H as shown in Figure 6. The bias in G and phase
difference in H are reduced according to Figures 6b and 6c,
respectively. It appears that the MEP G has slight phase shift
relative to the observed G. This is due to the phase
difference between the observed G and H (figure not
shown). The signal of relative phase in the input is pre-
served but divided between the MEP G and H.
[30] The MEP solution of heat fluxes appears to be a
function of z even though the physical process of the
partition of radiative energy occurs at the land-atmosphere
interface. This is due to the parameterization of Ia (and H)
using the MOST model. In reality, H has always been
measured at a certain distance above the ground in field
experiments. Since z has appreciable effect on the MEP
solution due to the 2/3 power dependence of I0 on z, the
value of z must be appropriately chosen for the locations
7 of 15
where no field measurements of H (e.g., using eddy
covariance device) are available to compare with. Note that
the MOST model for the surface layer is only valid for a
limited range of z. z cannot be too small due to the
assumption of the MOST that mean wind speed and
temperature profiles are not affected by the characteristics
of the underlying surface such as roughness. z cannot be too
large either because H at large z could be substantially
different from H at the surface [e.g., Wang and Bras, 2001].
It would be ideal if z is set at the lower bound of the surface
layer, zs, where H is expected to be the closest to H at the
surface (which has never been measured directly). The
theoretical value of zs is rather difficult to determine.
Nonetheless, the good agreement between the MEP H with
the observed H indicates that zs at the two sites is close to
the measurement height of H. Our results suggest that,
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

Figure 5. (a) Time series of the MEP solution of G and H (dashed lines) versus the observed fluxes
(solid lines) with the observed Rn as the input to equation (15); MEP solution of (b) G and (c) H versus
observations. Twenty minute average data collected at Lucky Hill in Walnut Gulch watershed, Arizona,
2– 17 June 2008.

depending on the surface roughness, zs  2 – 3 m for flat
nonvegetated surfaces, while zs  4 – 5 m for surfaces
covered with sparse vegetation of 1 m in height.
[31] The only meteorological input to the MEP model is
net radiation. The model parameters are either physical (i.e.,
thermal inertia of the soil) or universal constants. The model
does not need calibration (i.e., no tuning parameters). No
classical theories would give a unique solution of G and H
(over a dry soil) based on conservation of energy only (i.e.,
G + H = Rn for given Rn) since there are more unknowns
than governing equations. The problem is underdetermined
using conventional methods. This is a typical situation
where an inference is sought based on incomplete informa-
tion. In that sense, the MEP solution is a ‘‘guess,’’ arguably
the best one, instead of a guaranteed prediction. Our
confidence on the MEP solution may be measured by the
8 of 15
FT (see equation (4)). The odds that the MEP prediction
fails is estimated as 1 in 1017 for common situations, e.g.,
D  40 for G, H  100 and Is, Ia  103. Certainly, the
performance of the MEP method depends on the input
information. The power of the MEP is reflected in its
capability, as an inference tool, of extracting the relevant
information about G and H given the net energy, Rn.
[32] An intriguing aspect of the analysis is that the surface
temperature seems to be irrelevant since neither the dissi-
pation function nor the test of the MEP solution needs the
information of surface temperature. Yet, surface temperature
is expected to be an important diagnostic for the surface
energy balance as the emitted long-wave radiation, a com-
ponent of Rn, strongly depends on the skin temperature. In
fact, the effect of the surface temperature on the MEP
solution of G and H is included through Rn even though a
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

Figure 6. (a) Time series of the MEP solution of G and H (dashed lines) versus the observed fluxes
(solid lines) with the observed total fluxes G + H as the input to equation (15) (to replace Rn); MEP
solution of (b) G and (c) H versus observations. Same data set as that of Figure 5.

given Rn does not uniquely determine the surface temper- maximized among all possible values allowed by the
ature. In addition, the surface heat fluxes are directly related available energy for the case of dry soil. The hypothesis
to space-time variations in the surface temperature instead of maximum H, or equivalently minimum G due to conser-
of temperature itself. Nonetheless, the surface temperature vation of energy H + G = Rn for a given Rn, can be tested
does contain essential information about the surface energy using the observations of heat fluxes and skin temperature.
budget that we turn our attention to next. [34] In the following analysis, G = G(Ts) is a functional of
the skin temperature time history [Wang and Bras, 1999],
4. A Stationary Hypothesis of Energy Balance where Ts is understood as the skin temperature at current
time while the skin temperature at earlier times is treated as
[33] Many nonequilibrium systems can be understood given parameters. The necessary condition for H to be
and described by extremum principles [Weinstock, 1952; extremum is that all partial derivatives of the Lagrangian
Sieniutycz and Salamon, 1990]. The idea that nature takes function,
an optimal path (or fastest approach) to reach an equilibrium
state under certain constraints has led the hypotheses of fh  H þ lh ðRn  H  GÞ; ð17Þ
maximum evaporation and transpiration [Wang et al., 2004,
2007] governing the energy budget over the land surface. It
with respect to the state variables Ts, H and the Lagrangian
has also been suggested that turbulent sensible heat flux is
multiplier lh vanish,
the next most effective (to evaporation) heat removal
mechanism [Kim and Entekhabi, 1998]. If that is true,
@fh @fh @fh
which as we show below it is not, H is expected to be ¼ 0; ¼ 0; ¼ 0; ð18Þ
@Ts @H @lh

9 of 15
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES
Figure 7. Validation of equation (19) using the observed Ts, G and Rn measured at the Owens Lake site.
for a given Rn. The choice of H as a state variable explicitly
leads to a partition of net radiation as a result of the
extremization procedure without specification of arbitrary
models for turbulent heat transfer. Heat fluxes are
commonly used as independent state variables in the
nonequilibrium thermodynamics [Sieniutycz and Salamon,
1990, p. 3]. Equations (17) and (18) yield the necessary
condition of a potential extremum H,
 Rn
@G
¼ 0; ð19Þ
@Ts
lh ¼ 1: ð20Þ
The superscript Rn in equation (19) emphasizes that the
derivative is evaluated under the condition of fixed Rn. The
corresponding Hessian matrix Hfh (see Appendix C) has
three (nonzero) eigenvalues,
 2 0
@ G
 ; 1; 1;
@Ts2
where the superscript ‘‘0’’ indicates the derivatives are
defined at the stationary point of fh under the constraint
G(Ts) + H = Rn. The eigenvalues do not have the same sign
since the curvature of G function is not zero in general.
Then the stationary point of H is a saddle point instead of an
extremum due to the indefiniteness of Hfh. If equation (19)
holds, neither is H maximum, nor is G minimum due to the
constraint G + H = Rn. Validation of equation (19) implies
that Rn is partitioned in such as way that both fluxes reach a
stationary saddle point.
[35] The estimated @G/@Ts terms using the observed Ts, G
and Rn for the Owens Lake and the Lucky Hill site are
shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. They are close to
zero, meaning that the values are small compared to the
ratio of the amplitude of variation in G to that of Ts, 10 W
m2 K1. At both sites, the observed G ranges from 100
to 500 W m2 and Ts from 10 to 60 C (Ts data not shown).
The estimated derivatives only significantly depart from
zero value at high and low levels of Rn. There are two
plausible explanations for this departure. First, there are
fewer data points at high and low values of Rn that may
10 of 15
W11422
cause large numerical errors in estimating the partial deriv-
atives. Second, the nonzero derivatives may result from the
violation of energy conservation as the observed energy
fluxes tend to be more out of balance, especially at the
Lucky Hill site (see Figure 2), at very high and very low Rn.
Hence we view the results as solid evidence supporting the
hypothesis that H and G reach stationary saddle point in
balancing net radiation.
[36] The hypothesis, if further confirmed to be true, is a
general governing principle for the energy budget over a dry
soil since the test of the hypothesis is (turbulent transport)
model independent. Note that equation (19) holds for the
case considered in section 3.1 where an analytical solution
of the heat fluxes exists (see Appendix A). Temperature
independent F1 and F2 in equations (A25) and (A26)
guarantees vanishing derivatives for prescribed F0. But
neither can be maximum or minimum because F1 and F2
are symmetric. Then the only possibility is that the station-
ary point is a saddle. It would not be surprising that the
conclusion for F1 and F2 would be also valid for G and H if
one thinks of heat conduction as a limiting case of turbulent
diffusion.
[37] The above analysis indicates that the energy budget
over a dry soil depends on change of temperature instead of
absolute level of temperature. This is not a new finding as
all existing models of G and H [e.g., Sellers, 1965; Wang
and Bras, 1999; Monin and Obukhov, 1954; Tillman, 1972;
Katul et al., 1995] use either spatial or temporal variations
of temperature. The MEP solution of heat fluxes is consis-
tent with this property of energy budget over dry soil: the
surface heat fluxes are not informative about the surface
temperature, at least not directly, which gives a physical
meaning to equation (19).
[38] The stationary hypothesis and the MEP model are
intended to tell a full story about the partition of net
radiation into surface heat fluxes over a dry soil seen from
complementary point of view. The stationary hypothesis
describes a certain aspect of the process that the MEP model
does not, and vice versa. The MEP model of surface heat
fluxes is formulated using an epistemological argument
based on the Bayesian probability theory. The result is a
useful algorithm, as a statistical inference, for computing the
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES
Figure 8. Validation of equation (19) using the observed Ts, G and Rn measured at the Lucky Hill site.
surface heat fluxes using the available information. The
stationary hypothesis of surface heat flux is developed using
an ontological argument based on our experience about the
physical world. The result is a rationale, as a fundamental
principle, for explaining the underlying physical mecha-
nisms leading to the observed the surface heat fluxes.
Together they not only shed new light on the process of
surface energy balance but also predict the energy budget
with information considered to be incomplete from tradi-
tional viewpoint. The MEP hypothesis has little direct
bearing on the stationary hypothesis except that the latter
may explain why the MEP model of heat fluxes does not
need temperature input. Logically, the stationary hypothesis
is completely independent of the MEP model of heat fluxes
in the sense that (1) testing the stationary hypothesis does
not require models of sensible and ground heat flux, which
makes the hypothesis most general; (2) the stationary
hypothesis does not lead to models of sensible and ground
heat flux either (at least not yet). Nonetheless, the stationary
hypothesis supported by the observational evidence (i.e.,
@G/@Ts = 0) conditioned on conservation of energy (i.e.,
G + H = Rn) is consistent with the MEP model that the
solution of surface heat fluxes does not depend on Ts, at
least not directly.
5. Conclusions
[39] The proposed model of the surface heat fluxes based
on the principle of maximum entropy production and the
stationary hypothesis of the energy balance are two com-
plementary components of a new view of the heat exchange
at the land-atmosphere interface. The stationary hypothesis
adds another example of natural phenomena understood
from the perspective of an optimality argument. The
hypothesis was tested under the most general conditions
even though it does not lead to a model of the heat fluxes.
That task is fulfilled by the MEP theory that allows the heat
fluxes to be parameterized once transport models are
selected. The MEP method for modeling and estimating
surface heat fluxes complements the existing methods as it
11 of 15
W11422
only needs net radiation input without requiring other
meteorological variables such as temperature and wind
speed. The MEP method will not replace the existing ones,
instead it offers an alternative method that would enhance
the models of land surface energy balance.
[40] The significance of the proposed MEP model is that
the concept of entropy production is not limited to the
thermodynamic entropy production. In general, the MaxEnt
and MEP formalisms provide a tool through extremization
of ‘‘entropy production’’ to make predictions (as statistical
inference). Depending on the quantities of interest, the
‘‘entropy (production)’’ defined in the MaxEnt and MEP
formalisms is not always related to the thermodynamic
entropy. This study presents an example where the ‘‘entropy
production’’ is different from both thermodynamic entropy
production and (thermal) energy dissipation that are often
used in the models of nonequilibrium systems. We expect
the MEP method to be applicable to the energy balance over
a wet or a vegetated land surface where the challenge is to
formulate the entropy production or dissipation function
including the latent heat flux term; an ongoing research
subject. This study offers new possibilities of improving
hydrology models using the MEP theory. The encouraging
results offer genuine hope that the next generation of land
surface models will be capable of capturing all features of
the surface energy balance under all conditions.
Appendix A: Analytical Solution of Heat
Conduction
[41] The heat transfer in the two semi-infinite columns in
contact at z = 0 are described by
@T1 @ 2 T1
r1 c1 ¼ m1 2 ; 0<z<1 ðA1Þ
@t @z
@T2 @ 2 T2
r2 c2 ¼ m2 2 ; 1 < z < 0 ðA2Þ
@t @z
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

where T is temperature and r, c and m are constant density, where C1(s) and D1(s) are two arbitrary functions. Zero flux
specific heat and heat conductivity associated with self- boundary condition equation (A4) requires C1(s) = 0.
explanatory indices. t and z carry their conventional Therefore,
meaning. The prescribed initial and boundary conditions are
 rffiffiffiffiffi 
s
T^1 ðs; zÞ ¼ D1 ðsÞexp  z ; ðA15Þ
T1 ð0; zÞ ¼ T2 ð0; zÞ ¼ T0 ; t > 0; ðA3Þ k1

where D1(s) is yet to be determined. Similarly, L transform

@T1 of equation (A2) with the initial condition equation (A5)
¼ 0; z!1 ðA4Þ
@z leads to
rffiffiffiffiffi 
s
@T2 T^2 ðs; zÞ ¼ C2 ðsÞexp z ; ðA16Þ
¼ 0; z ! 1 ðA5Þ k2
@z
where k1 = m2/(r2c2) and C2(s) is an arbitrary function to be
T1 ðt; 0Þ ¼ T2 ðt; 0Þ; t > 0: ðA6Þ determined.
[44] Continuous temperature at the interface z = 0 through
where T0 is a constant. A second boundary condition at z = equation (A6) requires
0 must be specified for solving T1 and T2. Assume a source
of heat is located at z = 0 (the contact point of the two D1 ðsÞ ¼ C2 ðsÞ ¼ AðsÞ: ðA17Þ
columns) with a given heat flux input, F0, partitioned into
F1 and F2,
Substituting equations (A15) – (A17) into L-transformed
@T1 ðt; 0Þ equations (A9), we obtain
F 1 ¼ m1 ; ðA7Þ
@z
1 ^0
F
@T2 ðt; 0Þ AðsÞ ¼ pffiffi ðA18Þ
F 2 ¼ m2 ; ðA8Þ I1 þ I2 s
@z
^ 0 is the L transform of F0 with thermal inertia
where F
satisfying conservation of energy, parameters defined as
F1 þ F2 ¼ F0 ðt Þ; ðA9Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
Ij  rj cj mj ¼ rj cj kj ; j ¼ 1; 2: ðA19Þ
where appropriate sign is understood. F1 and F2 are
unknowns to be determined from equations (A1) – (A9). Then,
[42] Solutions of equations (A1) and (A2) under initial
 rffiffiffiffiffi 
and boundary conditions equations (A3) – (A9) may be 1 F ^ 0 ðsÞ s
deduced by means of Laplace transform (L transform) with T^1 ðs; zÞ ¼ pffiffi exp  z ; 0<z<1 ðA20Þ
I1 þ I2 s k1
respect to time t. Denote
T^1 ðs; zÞ ¼ Lt;s fT1 ðt; zÞg; ðA10Þ rffiffiffiffiffi 
1 F ^ 0 ðsÞ s
T^2 ðs; zÞ ¼ pffiffi exp z ; 1 < z < 0: ðA21Þ
I1 þ I2 s k2
T^2 ðs; zÞ ¼ Lt;s fT2 ðt; zÞg; ðA11Þ
[45] Inverse L transform of equations (A20) and (A21)
where L is the Laplace transform operator, gives the solution of temperature at the interface z = 0,
Z1
Zt
T^ ðs; zÞ ¼ est ½T ðt; zÞ  T0 dt: ðA12Þ 1 1 F0 ðt Þdt
T1 ðt; 0Þ ¼ T2 ðt; 0Þ ¼ T0 þ pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ðA22Þ
0 I1 þ I2 p tt
0
[43] L transform of equation (A1) with the initial condi-
tion equation (A3) leads to [46] According to equations (A7) and (A8), L transform
of F1 and F2 are
@ 2 T^1 ^
sT^1 ¼ k1
@z2
; ðA13Þ ^1 ¼ m1 @ T1 ðt; 0Þ ;
F ðA23Þ
@z
where k1 = m1/(r1c1). Equation (A13) has a general
^
solution, ^2 ¼ m2 @ T2 ðt; 0Þ :
F ðA24Þ
@z
rffiffiffiffiffi   rffiffiffiffiffi 
s s
T^1 ðs; zÞ ¼ C1 ðsÞexp z þ D1 ðsÞexp  z ; ðA14Þ Then, inverse L transform of equations (A23) and (A24)
k1 k1
where @ T^ 1(t, 0)/@z and @ T^ 2(t, 0)/@z are obtained using

12 of 15
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

Table B1. Summary of the Extremum Solution Based on forms of fm and fh have been suggested by other authors
Monin-Obukhov Similarity Theorya [e.g., Beljaars and Holtslag, 1991], but they do not differ
qualitatively from those of Businger et al. According to
Stable Unstable
  u  Businger et al.,
T0 u* 2
Qz (a + 12)2
1
g z  p2ffiffi3 2 Tg0 *
H
z z
Cp u3 u3 fm ¼ 1 þ b ; ðB6Þ
1 T0 * 2 T0 * L
 2 g z 2 g z
a
The constants are taken as a  0.75 or 1, b  4.7, g 1  15, g 2  9.
z
fh ¼ a þ b ; ðB7Þ
L

equations (A20) and (A21) by differentiating with respect to under stable conditions, L > 0; and
z first and then letting z = 0 leads to the desired solution,
 z 14
@T1 ðt; 0Þ I1 fm ¼ 1  g 1 ; ðB8Þ
F 1  m1 ¼ F0 ; ðA25Þ L
@z I1 þ I2
 z 12
fh ¼ a 1  g 2 ; ðB9Þ
@T2 ðt; 0Þ I2 L
F 2  m2 ¼ F0 : ðA26Þ
@z I1 þ I2
under unstable conditions, L < 0. The empirical constants in
the above expressions are estimated as

Appendix B: An Extremum Solution of Surface a  0:75; b  4:7; g 1  15; g 2  9:

Layer Turbulence
[47] According to Monin and Obukhov [1954], mean [49] It can be shown that equations (B1) and (B2) do
wind shear Uz and temperature gradient Qz within a not always lead to unique relationships between Uz, Qz, u*
stationary and homogeneous surface layer can be described and H. To remove the nonuniqueness, we seek those
by the following equations: among all possible solutions allowed by equations (B1)
kz z and (B2) that satisfy the requirement that ‘‘momentum
U z ¼ fm ; ðB1Þ flux always reaches such values that heat flux and wind
u* L
shear are minimized under stable condition; and that
kz z heat flux and temperature gradient are minimized under
Qz ¼ fh ; ðB2Þ unstable condition.’’ Then we obtain expressions of Qz
q* L
and H in terms of u* shown in Table B1, called the
extremum solution based on Monin-Obukhov similarity
where z is the vertical coordinate (i.e., distance from the theory (MOST).
surface), k is the von Karman constant. Velocity scale u* [50] By combining the extremum solutions of Qz and H
(friction velocity) and temperature scale q* are defined in terms of u* given in Table B1, H can be formally
through shear stress t and heat flux H as expressed in the form
t
¼ u*2 ; ðB3Þ H ¼ rCp KH Qz ; ðB10Þ
r

with the eddy-diffusivity KH defined as

H
¼ u* q* ; ðB4Þ
rCp KH  C1 kzu* ; ðB11Þ

where r is the (constant) air density, Cp is the heat capacity

of the air at constant pressure. L is the Obukhov length, where C1 is defined in section 3.2. The ‘‘thermal inertia’’ for
the air, Ia, may be defined formally,
 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kg H Ia  rCp KH ;
L ¼ u3* ; ðB5Þ
T0 rCp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ðB12Þ
¼ rCp C1 kzu* :

where g is the gravitational acceleration, and T0 is a

representative temperature.
[48] fm and fh in equations (B1) and (B2) are empirical
functions introduced by Monin and Obukhov to represent Appendix C: Sufficient Conditions for Extremum
the effect of the stability on the mean profiles of wind speed [51] Positivity of the Hessian matrix of a multivariate
and temperature. The most popular functional forms of fm function f(x1, x2,. . ., xn) evaluated at the stationary point
and fh are proposed by Businger et al. [1971]. Alternative x0 = (x01, x02,. . ., x0n) determines whether f(~
~ x0) is an
13 of 15
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

extremum [Dineen, 2001]. The Hessian matrix of f is Desborough, C. E., A. J. Pitman, and P. Irannejad (1996), Analysis of the
relationship between bare soil evaporation and soil moisture simulated by
defined as 13 land surface schemes for a simple non-vegetated site, Global Planet.
Change, 13, 47 – 56.
0 1 Dewar, R. C. (2003), Information theory explanation of the fluctuation
@2f @2f @2f theorem, maximum entropy production and self-organized criticality
B @x2 ; @x1 @x2
; :::;
@x1 @xn C
B 1 C in non-equilibrium stationary states, J. Phys. A Math. Gen., 36,
B @2f @2f @2f C 631 – 641.
B ; ; :::; C
Hf ð~
xÞ ¼ B C; ðC1Þ Dewar, R. C. (2005), Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation
B @x2 @x1 @x22 :::
@x2 @xn C
B 2 C theorem, J. Phys. A Math. Gen., 38, L371 – L381.
@ @ f @2f @2f A Dineen, S. (2001), Multivariate Calculus and Geometry, 254 pp., Springer,
; ; :::; New York.
@xn @x1 @xn @x2 @x2n
Gregory, P. C. (2005), Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical
Sciences, 468 pp., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
Grinstein, G., and R. Linsker (2007), Comments on a derivation and
and the stationary point of f, ~
x0, is determined by application of the ‘maximum entropy production’ principle, J. Phys. A
Math. Theor., 40, 9717 – 9720.
Henderson-Sellers, A., P. Irannejad, K. McGuffie, and A. J. Pitman (2003),
rf ð~
x0 Þ ¼ 0; ðC2Þ Predicting land-surface climates—Better skill or moving targets?, Geo-
phys. Res. Lett., 30(14), 1777, doi:10.1029/2003GL017387.
Jaynes, E. T. (1957), Information theory and statistics mechanics, Phys.
where r is the gradient operator. The criteria for extremum Rev., 106, 620 – 630.
x0) are
f(~ Jaynes, E. T. (1980), The minimum entropy production principle, Annu.
Rev. Phys. Chem., 31, 579 – 601.
[52] 1. f(~x0) is a local minimum (maximum) if Hf is Jaynes, E. T., and G. L. Bretthorst (Eds.) (2003), Probability Theory—The
positive (negative) definite at ~
x0, Logic of Science, 755 pp., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
[53] 2. Hf is positive (negative) definite if and only if all Juretic, D., and P. Zupanovic (2003), Photosynthetic models with maximum
eigen values of Hf are positive (negative), entropy production in irreversible charge transfer steps, Comput. Biol.
Chem., 27, 541 – 553.
x0) is a saddle point if Hf is indefinite, i.e., its
[54] 3. f(~ Katul, G. G. (1994), A model for sensible heat flux probability density
eigen values change signs. function for near-neutral and slightly-stable atmospheric flows, Boundary
[55] The Hessian matrix of fh in equation (17) is Layer Meteorol., 71, 1 – 20.
Katul, G. G., S. T. Goltz, C.-I. Hsieh, Y. Cheng, F. Mowry, and
0 1 J. Sigmon (1995), Estimation of surface heat and momentum fluxes
@2G @G using the flux-variance method above uniform and non-uniform terrain,
B lh @T 2 ; 0; 
@Ts C Boundary Layer Meteorol., 74, 237 – 260.
B s C
Hfh ðTs ; H; lh Þ ¼ B
B 0; 0; 1 CC: ðC3Þ Kim, C. P., and D. Entekhabi (1998), Feedbacks in the land-surface and
@ @G A mixed-layer energy budgets, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 88, 1 – 21.
 ; 1; 0 Kleidon, A., and K. Fraedrich (2004), Biotic entropy production and
@Ts global atmosphere-biosphere interaction, in Non-equilibrium Thermo-
dynamics and the Production of Entropy, pp. 173 – 189, Springer,
At the stationary point, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kleidon, A., and S. Schymanski (2008), Thermodynamics and optimality of
 0 the water budget on land: A review, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20404,
@G doi:10.1029/2008GL035393.
l0h ¼ 1; ¼ 0; ðC4Þ Kondepudi, D., and I. Prigogine (1998), Modern Thermodynamics, 486 pp.,
@Ts John Wiley, New York.
Monin, A. S., and A. M. Obukhov (1954), Basic turbulence mixing laws in
then Hfh has three eigenvalues, the atmospheric surface layer, Tr. Inst. Teor. Geofiz. Akad. SSSR, 24(151),
163 – 187. (English translation, pp. 164 – 194 in Turbulence and Atmo-
 2 0 spheric Dynamics, edited by J. L. Lumley, translated by V. N. Bespalyi,
@ G Cent. for Turbul. Res., Palo Alto, Calif., 2001.)
 ; 1; 1:
@Ts2 Ozawa, H., A. Ohmura, R. D. Lorenz, and T. Pujol (2003), The second law
of thermodynamics and the global climate system: A review of the max-
imum entropy production principle, Rev. Geophys., 41(4), 1018,
doi:10.1029/2002RG000113.
[56] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by ARO under Paltridge, G. W. (1975), Global dynamics and climate—A system of mini-
project W911NF-07-1-0126 and NSF under grant EAR-0309594. We are mum entropy exchange, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 101, 475 – 484.
grateful to Gabriel Katul of Duke University for providing the Owens Lake Priestley, C. H. B. (1959), Turbulent Transfer in the Lower Atmosphere,
data used in this study. We thank David Goodrich and John Smith of 130 pp., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.
USDA-ARS for their support during the field experiment involving Sellers, W. D. (1965), Physical Climatology, 272 pp., Univ. of Chicago
graduate students at MIT, Ryan Knox and Gajan Sivandran. Press, Chicago, Ill.
Shannon, C. E. (1948), A mathematical theory of communication, Bell Syst.
Tech. J., 27, 379 – 423.
References Sieniutycz, S., and P. Salamon (1990), Non-equilibrium Theory and Extre-
Arya, S. P. (1988), Introduction to Micrometeorology, 307 pp., Academic, mum Principles, 547 pp., Taylor and Francis, New York.
New York. Tillman, J. E. (1972), The indirect determination of stability, heat, and
Beljaars, A. C. M., and A. A. M. Holtslag (1991), Flux parameterization momentum fluxes in the atmospheric boundary layer from simple
over land surfaces for atmospheric models, J. Appl. Meteorol., 30, 327 – scalar variables during dry unstable conditions, J. Appl. Meteorol., 11,
341. 783 – 792.
Buckingham, E. (1914), On physically similar systems; illustrations of the Tribus, M. (1961), Thermostatics and Thermodynamics—An Introduction
use of dimensional equations, Phys. Rev., 4, 345 – 376. to Energy, Information and States of Matters, With Engineering Applica-
Businger, J. A., J. C. Wyngaard, Y. Izumi, and E. F. Bradle (1971), Flux- tions, 649 pp., Van Nostrand Reinhold, Princeton, N. J.
profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer, J. Atmos. Sci., 28, Wang, J., and R. L. Bras (2001), Effect of temperature on surface energy
181 – 189. balance, Water Resour. Res., 37(12), 3383 – 3386.
de Groot, S. R., and P. Mazur (1984), Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Wang, J., and R. L. Bras (1999), Ground heat flux estimated from surface
510 pp., Dover, New York. soil temperature, J. Hydrol., 216, 214 – 226.

14 of 15
W11422 WANG AND BRAS: MEP AND SURFACE HEAT FLUXES W11422

Wang, J., and R. L. Bras (2009), An extremum solution of the Monin-
Obukhov similarity equations, J. Atmos. Sci., in press.
Wang, J., G. D. Salvucci, and R. L. Bras (2004), An extremum principle of
evaporation, Water Resour. Res., 40, W09303, doi:10.1029/
2004WR003087.
Wang, J., R. L. Bras, M. Lerdau, and G. D. Salvucci (2007), A maximum
hypothesis of transpiration, J. Geophys. Res., 112, G03010, doi:10.1029/
2006JG000255.
Weinstock, R. (1952), Calculus of Variations With Applications to Physics
and Engineering, 326 pp., McGraw-Hill, New York.


R. L. Bras and J. Wang, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. (jingfenw@
uci.edu)

15 of 15