ABSTRACT Although a key driver of Earth’s climate system, global land-atmosphere energy fluxes are poorly constrained. Here we use machine learning to merge energy flux measurements from

FLUXNET eddy covariance towers with remote sensing and meteorological data to estimate global gridded net radiation, latent and sensible heat and their uncertainties. The resulting FLUXCOM

database comprises 147 products in two setups: (1) 0.0833° resolution using MODIS remote sensing data (RS) and (2) 0.5° resolution using remote sensing and meteorological data (RS + METEO).

Within each setup we use a full factorial design across machine learning methods, forcing datasets and energy balance closure corrections. For RS and RS + METEO setups respectively, we

interactions and benchmark land surface model simulations. Design Type(s) modeling and simulation objective • factorial design Measurement Type(s) energy Technology Type(s) machine learning

Factor Type(s) machine learning • Energy Balance • temporal_interval • geographic location Sample Characteristic(s) Earth (Planet) • land • vegetation layer • climate system

Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data (ISA-Tab format) SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS GLEAM4: GLOBAL LAND EVAPORATION AND SOIL MOISTURE DATASET AT 0.1°

RESOLUTION FROM 1980 TO NEAR PRESENT Article Open access 10 March 2025 A GLOBAL 1 KM RESOLUTION DAILY SURFACE LONGWAVE RADIATION PRODUCT FROM MODIS SATELLITE DATA FROM 2000–2023 Article Open

access 03 May 2025 ASSESSING THE ACCURACY OF OPENET SATELLITE-BASED EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA TO SUPPORT WATER RESOURCE AND LAND MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS Article Open access 15 January 2024

BACKGROUND & SUMMARY Intercomparisons of global land surface models (LSMs) suggest large uncertainties regarding magnitude and pattern of land-atmosphere energy fluxes1,2, making it

difficult to assess and close energy and water budgets3,4,5. Existing regional networks of _in-situ_ measurements from FLUXNET eddy covariance towers6 provide only unevenly spaced point

information impairing direct comparisons with LSMs. In addition, the lack of energy balance closure of around 20% across sites suggests systematic biases of measured turbulent latent and

sensible heat fluxes7. The reasons for the energy balance closure gap are unclear and a community-accepted correction is unavailable. Previous efforts to integrate FLUXNET measurements,

satellite remote sensing and climate data with machine learning8,9,10 have yielded global products of land-atmosphere fluxes that have been used frequently to evaluate LSM

simulations11,12,13,14,15, for water budgets16,17, and land-atmosphere interactions18,19,20,21. However, data-driven global flux estimates are subject to uncertainty from, for example,

choice in machine learning algorithm and predictor variables, global climate forcing data, and the lack of energy balance closure. A better characterisation of these uncertainties is needed

for energy and water budget studies and to interpret apparent mismatches with LSM simulations. This, in turn, will lead to improvements of global estimation of land-atmosphere energy fluxes

by data-driven and process models. The FLUXCOM initiative (www.fluxcom.org) aims to improve our understanding of the multiple sources and facets of uncertainties in empirical upscaling and,

ultimately, to provide an ensemble of machine learning-based global flux products to the scientific community. We use two complementary experimental setups of input drivers (covariates) and

resulting global gridded products. In the remote sensing (“RS”) setup, fluxes are estimated exclusively from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite data. The second

approach additionally includes meteorological information. In this “RS + METEO” setup, fluxes are estimated from daily meteorological data and mean seasonal cycles of satellite data. Global

products of the RS setup have the advantage that they do not require global climate forcing datasets as inputs. Such datasets are themselves subject to uncertainty and are limited in spatial

resolution. Not using climate data, however, excludes potentially important information on meteorological conditions for biosphere-atmosphere fluxes and limits temporal coverage to the

MODIS era (i.e. 2001 onwards). In contrast, the RS + METEO setup makes use of daily meteorological conditions and through the use of mean seasonal cycles of satellite derived input drivers

allows for estimating fluxes beyond the satellite era. The skill of machine learning-based estimation for both setups at flux tower sites was analysed in detail via cross-validation22. The

analysis revealed good performance for latent and sensible heat, and in particular for net radiation. Both seasonality and between-site mean fluxes were well predicted, showing more skill

than for carbon fluxes (gross primary productivity, terrestrial ecosystem respiration, net ecosystem exchange). Furthermore, only negligible differences were found between different machine

learning techniques, and between the RS and RS + METEO setups, which suggests an overall robust extraction of the main patterns of flux variation across methods. In this study, we used the

validated and trained machine learning techniques for the FLUXCOM energy fluxes of Tramontana _et al_.22 and generated a large ensemble of gridded global flux products (Fig. 1). For the RS

setup, nine machine learning methods were used to generate gridded products at an 8-daily temporal and 0.0833° spatial resolution for the 2001–2015 period. For the RS + METEO setup, three

machine learning techniques with four global climate forcing data sets yielded products with daily temporal and 0.5° spatial resolution, and time periods (from ~1980 to present) depending on

the climate input data. For latent and sensible heat fluxes, we additionally considered uncertainty from a lack of tower-based energy balance closure by propagating three different

correction variants. Within the RS and RS + METEO setups, we followed a full factorial design of machine learning methods (9 for RS, 3 for RS + METEO) times energy balance correction

variants (3 for LE and H, 1 for Rn), and climate forcing input products (4, only for RS + METEO). To allow for a better reuse of the large archive, we generated ensemble products by pooling

machine learning estimates and energy balance closure gap variants. For the RS + METEO setup, this was also done separately for each climate forcing data to allow modellers to compare their

simulations with the FLUXCOM ensemble product driven by the same forcing. METHODS TRAINING OF MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS Machine learning methods were trained using observations from 224

flux tower sites following the specifications in Table 1 and detailed previously22. Two methods of the RS setup (GPR and RDF-GP) and one for the RS + METEO setup (KRR) which were included in

Tramontana _et al_. were not used here due to computational cost. The observed flux tower data had been screened for good quality by (1) allowing for no more than 20% of half-hourly data

comprising a daily value to be gap-filled data23, (2) checking for empirical consistency of energy fluxes, and (3) visual inspection. The same set of valid data points was used for net

radiation, latent, and sensible heat flux (i.e. case-wise exclusion). Daily latent and sensible heat fluxes were then corrected for energy balance closure gap at FLUXNET sites using

different approaches before training the machine learning algorithms (see below). The choice of satellite based and meteorological predictor variables followed a thorough feature selection

analysis using a tailored genetic algorithm24. Some predictor variables vary only in space (e.g. plant functional type), some also seasonally (e.g. potential shortwave radiation), and some

for each individual time step and location (e.g. short wave radiation, see Table 1). Each machine learning method used the same dataset for training within the RS or RS + METEO setup

respectively and used all available data points in contrast to using only 90% of sites as in the cross-validation analysis22. CORRECTION FOR ENERGY BALANCE NON-CLOSURE AT FLUXNET SITES PRIOR

TO TRAINING We used three different approaches to address uncertainty due to the widely observed lack of energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites. The different correction approaches

correspond to different hypothesis regarding the primary cause of the energy balance closure gap. The general form of the correction is xLE*LE + xH*H = Rn-G, where G is the ground heat flux,

and xLE and xH are the correction factors for latent and sensible heat, respectively. The perhaps most widely used approach is the Bowen ratio correction25 (“BWR”, see Table 2), which

assumes that the ratio of sensible and latent heat flux is accurately measured, and LE and H are scaled with the same correction factor (xLE&H: = xLE = xH) to force energy balance

closure (xLE&H = (Rn − G)/(LE + H)). The “residual approach” (“RES” and “NONE”, see Table 2) allocates all missing energy to either LE (LERES with = xLE = (Rn-G-H)/LE, xH = 1) or H (HRES

with xH = (Rn-G-LE)/H, xLE = 1). The correction factors xLE and xH are estimated as the median of 30 daily values in a moving window. Median values within moving windows were chosen to

minimize the impact of noise on x. Very small fluxes (<1 MJ m−2 d−1) were not corrected (x = 1) because x can take implausible values when the denominator approaches zero. When G was not

measured or missing, it was estimated based on a Random Forest model which was trained on all available daily measurements of G across sites using daily meteorological and energy flux

variables as predictors. GLOBAL PRODUCTS OF PREDICTOR VARIABLES FOR RS PRODUCTS To produce spatio-temporal grids of energy fluxes, the trained machine learning algorithms require only

spatio-temporal grids of input data. We used MODIS land products (collection 5; https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/) as input data for FLUXCOM. The MODIS products include daytime and nighttime land

surface temperature (LST; MOD11A226), land cover (MCD12Q127), fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation by a canopy (fPAR) (MOD15A228), and bidirectional reflectance

distribution function (BRDF)-corrected reflectances (MCD43B429). Land cover data from 2001 to 2010 were processed to assign the majority land cover class in each 0.0833° grid for the whole

period, i.e. land cover change was not considered. The LST, fPAR, and BRDF-corrected reflectances were provided with an 8-daily temporal resolution. The BRDF-corrected reflectances were

further converted to vegetation indices: the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), the enhanced vegetation index (EVI)30, and the normalized difference water index (NDWI)31. The

processing of the gridded remote sensing data followed the procedure done at flux site-level22. Poor quality data were filled to create continuous time-series data. For each time snapshot,

bad quality data were identified for each 1 km pixels by the MODIS quality assurance/quality criteria (QA/QC). If more than 25% of 1 km pixels within a 0.0833° grid cell had good quality,

the mean of good quality pixels was taken. Otherwise, the value was estimated using the local mean seasonal cycle, i.e. the mean value of other years with accepted quality for the same

8-daily period was used. For the RS product we used incoming surface shortwave radiation data of the Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency (JAXA) Satellite Monitoring for Environmental Studies

(JASMES) product for 2001–2015 period (ftp://suzaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/pub/GLI/glical/Global_05km/repro_v6/). The products are derived from Terra MODIS data with a simple radiative transfer

model32. The products were previously evaluated for three EC sites in Asia33 and 20 EC sites in Alaska34, and showed a good agreement with observations. Spatial and temporal averaging was

conducted by converting the original 5 km grid to 0.0833° grids and daily to 8-daily temporal resolution. Missing data in the original 5 km data were replaced by mean daily values of

available years. GLOBAL PRODUCTS OF PREDICTOR VARIABLES FOR RS + METEO PRODUCTS Mean seasonal and mean annual characteristics of MODIS-based remotely sensed land surface variables (see Table

 1 and Tramontana _et al_. for details) were tiled by plant functional type, i.e. grids for each PFT containing the mean value per PFT and time step at 0.5° were created. Mean seasonal

cycles of daily MODIS data for each grid cell used in the RS + METEO setup were computed by linearly interpolating a temporally smoothed mean seasonal cycle of 8-daily values. The land cover

fractions are based on the same product and approach as in the RS product. For daily meteorological variables four different commonly used global climate forcing data sets were chosen:

WATCH Forcing Data ERA Interim (WFDEI35, 1979–2013, ftp://rfdata:[email protected]), Global Soil Wetness Project 3 forcing (GSWP336, 1950–2014,), CRUNCEPv837 (1950–2016,

https://vesg.ipsl.upmc.fr/thredds/catalog/work/p529viov/cruncep/V8_1901_2016/catalog.html), and a combination of radiation based on CERES38 and precipitation from GPCP39 (CERES-GPCP,

2001–2014, https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/, https://precip.gsfc.nasa.gov/). The water availability index and the index of water availability, (WAI and IWA, see supplement 3 in Tramontana _et

al_.22), were calculated for each forcing data set based on daily precipitation and potential evapotranspiration. The native spatial resolution of all four climate forcing datasets was 0.5°

except for CERES-GPCP (1°). Here, CERES based radiation and GPCP based precipitation data were regridded to 0.5° by splitting up the original 1° grid cells into 0.5° grid cells. GENERATION

OF GLOBAL PRODUCTS (PREDICTION) For the RS products, the trained machine learning models were applied to the gridded predictor variable fields for each 8-daily time step with a spatial

resolution of 0.0833°. For the RS + METEO products, the trained machine learning models were run for each daily time step and for each plant functional type (PFT) at a 0.5° spatial

resolution separately, and a weighted mean over the PFT fractions was obtained for each gridcell and time step. Note that the fraction of unvegetated (barren, permanent snow or ice, water)

area was omitted in that calculation such that the definition of the calculated flux densities are per vegetated area (rather than grid cell or land area). The omission of deserts was

necessary due to a lack of flux tower data. This complicates the assessment of globally integrated fluxes for sensible heat and net radiation where these fluxes typically show large positive

and negative fluxes for hot and cold deserts, respectively. All computations were performed with MATLAB on a high-performance computing cluster at the Max Planck Institute for

Biogeochemistry, Jena. SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL AGGREGATION OF FLUXCOM-RS PRODUCTS To facilitate broader reuse of the FLUXCOM-RS products originally at 0.0833° and 8-daily time step we derived

monthly products at 0.0833° and 0.5°. The monthly temporal aggregation is based on linearly interpolating the 8-daily data into daily data followed by calculating monthly averages. The

spatial aggregation to 0.5° is based on taking the mean value of non-missing data points within each 0.5° cell. ENSEMBLE ESTIMATES For the RS setup, we generate ensemble products at 0.0833°

and 0.5° spatial resolution for each flux (LE, H, Rn) by pooling all the different runs per machine learning method (9) and energy balance correction variants (3, only for LE and H). This

yields 27 ensemble members for LE and H, and 9 for Rn for the RS ensembles. For the RS + METEO setup, we generated ensembles for each climate forcing data by pooling the runs for three

machine learning methods and energy balance correction variants (3, only for LE and H). For each climate forcing specific ensemble, this yields 9 ensemble members for LE and H, and 3

ensemble members for Rn. We additionally generated an overall RS + METEO ensemble by pooling runs for different climate forcing data, machine learning methods, and energy balance correction

variants. For the overall RS + METEO ensemble this yields 36 ensemble members for LE and H, and 12 for Rn. The ensemble products were generated for mean monthly fluxes where the ensemble

estimate is the median over ensemble members for each gridcell and month. In addition, we included the median absolute deviation as a robust estimate of ensemble spread, i.e., uncertainty.

For the RS ensemble, the ensemble spread captures uncertainty related to the choice of machine learning method and the lack of energy balance closure seen in FLUXNET data. For the overall RS

 + METEO ensemble, the ensemble spread captures uncertainty related to the choice of machine learning method, the energy balance closure gap issue, and the choice of climate forcing data.

Due to space restrictions and conciseness, results and technical validation (see below) focus on a parallel assessment of the RS and the RS + METEO ensemble. Occasionally we make use of all

ensemble members where appropriate (see Figure captions). CROSS-CONSISTENCY CHECKS WITH THE STATE-OF-THE-ART ESTIMATES We compare the spatial patterns of mean annual LE and Rn fluxes as well

as monthly time series of their continental means from the FLUXCOM ensemble against previous estimates. For LE, we compare FLUXCOM RS and RS + METEO ensembles against those from Model Tree

Ensemble (MTE10), the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM v3.1a40), and LandFlux-EVAL41. The MTE is based on only one machine learning method8 trained on monthly flux data9,10 and

may be regarded as a precursor to FLUXCOM. GLEAM (https://www.gleam.eu/) models evapotranspiration based on a Priestley-Taylor formulation42 with explicit soil moisture stress, and the

interception by the Gash model43, and was informed by various satellite forcing data. LandFlux-EVAL (http://www.iac.ethz.ch/group/land-climate-dynamics/research/landflux-eval.html) is the

ensemble mean of 14 evapotranspiration products of different approaches. For the conversion between evapotranspiration and latent heat we assumed a constant latent heat of vaporization of

2.45 MJ mm−1. For Rn, we compare against two satellite-based products from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES, https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/) SYN1d Ed4A product38 and Surface

Radiation Budget (SRB, https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/srb/srb_table) release 3.1. Both products combine diverse atmospheric satellite data extensively with data assimilation, while

SRB can be regarded as a precursor to CERES. For comparison with FLUXCOM, the original 3-hourly data were aggregated to monthly means and resampled from 1° to 0.5° using the nearest

neighbour method. In the RS + METEO setup, the CERES shortwave radiation was used as an input for one meteorological forcing variant (CERES-GPCP), i.e., for one fourth of the ensemble

members of RS + METEO. Thus, the produced net radiation of the FLUXCOM RS + METEO ensemble is not fully independent from the net radiation of CERES. However, the RS product did not use CERES

data and is therefore independent. The comparisons of all data products use the common 2001–2005 period and a common mask for vegetated land area. Differences in masking may lead to some

differences in mean global numbers compared to those reported elsewhere. We compare mean annual fluxes across space and provide Pearson’s correlation coefficient, equations of a linear total

least squares fit, and density scatter plots of mean annual fluxes using gridcells with a land fraction of at least 80% to minimize inconsistencies in cross-product comparisons. For

continental mean monthly fluxes, we calculated the mean and median absolute deviation (MAD) across all ensemble members for each monthly time step. MAD was converted into a robust estimate

of 1 standard deviation by multiplying it with 1.4826 (assuming a normal distribution44). The calculation of global and continental mean annual energy fluxes and their uncertainty also

follows the procedure of first aggregating each ensemble member for the period 2001–2013, but the common mask of valid data from the intersection with independent products was not used. For

an unbiased comparison of FLUXCOM sensible heat and net radiation fluxes with global values from the literature, we scaled FLUXCOM products to incorporate fluxes from non-vegetated area of

the world. The non-vegetated land area not covered by FLUXCOM products corresponds to cold (mainly Greenland and Antarctica) and hot (mainly Sahara) deserts. For hot deserts, we estimated a

mean sensible heat flux based on CERES net radiation and GPCP precipitation assuming that all precipitation is converted to latent heat and subtracted from Rn. The average values were

computed for grid cells where the fraction of hot desert exceeds 50% and resulted: 5.9356 MJ m−2 day−1 for Rn and 5.8264 MJ m−2 day−1 for H for the period 2001–2010. For cold deserts we

obtained mean Rn as −0.1826 MJ m−2 day−1 from CERES, while H was derived by a previously calculated value45 of −33.2 W m−2 (−2.8685 MJ m−2 day−1) based on reanalysis. The global adjusted

value of FLUXCOM for sensible heat or net radiation was then computed as a weighted average for the three area fractions: vegetated = 0.765, cold deserts = 0.108, hot deserts = 0.1265, where

the vegetated value is directly from FLUXCOM. DATA RECORDS The native FLUXCOM energy flux products amount to more than 4 TB of data. Products with daily or 8-daily temporal resolution or

customized ensemble estimates are available on request to Martin Jung ([email protected]). Monthly energy flux data of all ensemble members as well as the ensemble estimates from the

FLUXCOM initiative (http://www.fluxcom.org) described here46 are freely available (CC4.0 BY licence) from the data portal of Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry after registration.

Choose ‘FluxCom’ in the dropdown menu of the database and select FileID 257. The users will be provided with an access to a ftp server. The ftp directory stores 214 GB of data and is

structured in a consistent way with the file naming in Table 2. The folder structure was designed to facilitate easy download of relevant subsets of the archive and is as per the following

convention: <SETUP>/<TYPE>/<sRESO>/<tRESO> or <SETUP>/<TYPE>/<METEO>/<tRESO> <SETUP> is either “RS” or “RS_METEO”. <TYPE> is

either “ensemble” or “member”. At the third level, RS uses <sRESO> (“720_360” for 0.5° or “4320_2160” for 0.0833° resolution) and RS + METEO uses <METEO> (see Table 2).

<tRESO> is always “monthly” for the currently available data in the portal. For the data at other temporal resolutions, which are available upon request, tRESO can also be daily, 8

daily, or annual. The files are provided in network Common Data Form, version 4 (netCDF-4) data format (https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/). The data files are named using the

following convention: <EF>.<SETUP>.<EBC>.<MLM>.<METEO>.<sRESO>.<tRESO>.<YYYY>.nc The details of each of the <item> in the filenames are

provided in Table 2. For example, the file “LE.RS.EBC-ALL.MLM-ALL.METEO-NONE.720_360.monthly.2001.nc” is the RS-based ensemble latent heat energy of year 2001 that includes all fluxes

produced using all energy balance closure correction methods and all machine learning methods and no meteorological data aggregated to 0.5° spatial resolution (size 720 along longitude and

360 along latitude) and monthly temporal resolution. For all types (ensemble or member) of data, the variable names for latent heat energy, sensible heat, and net radiation are LE, H and Rn,

respectively. The data files for both RS and RS + METEO -based ensembles include additional variables with suffix ‘_MAD’ (e.g., LE_MAD). This variable provides the data for uncertainty

(median absolute deviation) among different ensemble members for each grid cell and month. The ‘_MAD’ uncertainty variable is also in the same time, latitude, longitude coordinates. The

ensembles from RS + METEO products, that include runs with four different forcing inputs, also have a variable with ‘_n’ (e.g., LE_n in latitude, longitude coordinates). This variable stores

the number of ensemble members included while calculating the median. The number of ensemble members varies in space in RS + METEO ensembles, because of the difference in land-sea mask of

different meteorological data used. The data for each variable is defined by 3 dimensions: ‘lat’ for latitudes and ‘lon’ for longitudes in space, and ‘time’ for time. The data variables are

defined by time, latitude, longitude coordinates. The header of the netCDF-4 data files includes the global attributes that lists the product (RS + METEO or RS), type of the data (either

member or ensemble), the machine learning method(s), and meteorological data used (as per Table 2). Additionally, we have included ancillary data (in a directory named “ancillary”) for land

and vegetated area fraction per grid cell. The files are named using “<variable name>.<sReso>.nc” convention. The <variable name> is “landfraction” for the fraction of land

within a grid cell, and “vegfraction” for the fraction of the land fraction that has vegetation cover. The <sReso> reflects the spatial resolution, and is “720_360” for fractions

corresponding to 0.5° products, or “4320_2160” those corresponding to 0.0833° RS products. TECHNICAL VALIDATION In this section, we present the main spatiotemporal features of the FLUXCOM

energy fluxes. We validate patterns and magnitudes of fluxes against previous state-of-the-art estimates, and expectations from theory and literature. Consistent with current understanding,

mean annual latent heat and net radiation fluxes are the highest in tropical and the lowest in high latitude regions of the world (Fig. 2). In contrast, mean annual sensible heat peaks in

dry sub-tropical regions where latent heat fluxes are reduced due to expected water limitation on evapotranspiration which is known to increase the Bowen ratio (H/LE). These patterns are

qualitatively consistent among the RS and RS + METEO ensemble products, while flux magnitude differences, e.g., larger net radiation of the RS product in the tropics, are also evident. In

general, both RS and RS + METEO products show similar large-scale variations in energy fluxes but local-scale heterogeneities are better resolved in RS products (see the inset zoom-ins in

Fig. 2) due to a 6-fold increase in spatial resolution. The maps of Fig. 3 provide a visual impression of the global spatial co-variation of energy fluxes. In these RGB maps, hot and dry

regions appear as red where latent heat is low and net radiation is preferentially converted to sensible heat. Wet tropical regions with high net radiation and latent heat but low sensible

heat appear as cyan. Regions where latent heat is energy-limited but net radiation is intermediate or low appear in green. The partitioning of Rn into LE and H components is similar for both

RS + METEO and RS products (Fig. 3) with some regional differences visible. To illustrate local differences among the RS and RS + METEO ensemble products, as well as seasonal variations of

energy fluxes and its uncertainties, we present time series of selected locations (0.5° grid cells) in Fig. 3. For example, in the selected location in North America (A), situated at the

transition between water limited and energy limited regime of evapotranspiration, we see more H relative to LE in the RS ensemble compared to the RS + METEO ensemble. Similar patterns of

slightly different net radiation partitioning in LE and H are also evident in other transitional locations in Africa (E) and Australia (F). Energy flux uncertainties (see shading in Fig. 3)

vary spatially, seasonally, and interannually as well as between the RS and the RS + METEO ensemble products. Where uncertainties of the RS + METEO ensemble are larger compared to the RS

ensemble, it suggests larger contributions of meteorological forcing data uncertainty. On the other hand, larger uncertainty of the RS ensemble may indicate larger contribution of machine

learning method choice, perhaps due to poor constraints by flux tower stations. Overall, there is high level of consistency between the RS and RS + METEO ensemble products for seasonality

and flux magnitudes as well as their uncertainties. We further evaluate the spatial patterns of mean annual energy fluxes of the FLUXCOM ensemble against previous estimates. First, we

evaluate the long-term mean LE from RS and RS + METEO against those from MTE10, GLEAM v 3.1a40, and LandFlux-EVAL41. Generally, the spatial variation of ET is very consistent between FLUXCOM

products and previous global estimates (Fig. 4) with R2 values close to 1. All show the dominant gradient between the highest LE in the humid tropics and the lowest LE in cold and dry

places. There are however sizeable systematic differences between products, in particular within the tropics. Both RS and RS + METEO show larger LE in the tropics than MTE and LandFlux-EVAL

while GLEAM shows regionally similar LE magnitudes in the wet tropics. The larger tropical LE in FLUXCOM propagates to 15–20% larger global means of LE compared to the other two estimates

(see below for a broader comparison of global LE estimates). Due to the large LE flux in the wet tropics, even a comparatively small relative difference results in large absolute

differences. In the tropical regions, the difference between RS and RS + METEO LE is also relatively large with larger LE in RS. But, globally, this difference is somewhat balanced by lower

LE in RS in other regions. Semi-arid regions also tend to show comparatively large systematic differences across products. For Rn, we compare the spatial patterns of FLUXCOM products against

two satellite-based products from CERES38 and SRB. The spatial patterns of mean annual Rn from RS and RS + METEO agree better with CERES (R2 = 0.96) than the agreement between CERES and SRB

(R2 = 0.93) (Fig. 5). The RS product and CERES show larger Rn in the tropics compared to RS + METEO. Large differences between SRB and all other products are evident both in tropical and

extratropical regions, South America, large parts of North America and across Eurasia. CERES as well as SRB tend to show larger Rn in many extratropical regions compared to both FLUXCOM

ensemble products. This contributes to a 4–7% larger global vegetated Rn of CERES and SRB compared to FLUXCOM products. We further compare the monthly variations of global and

continental-scale energy fluxes (Fig. 6) against previous estimates. There is a very high agreement among all with respect to seasonality. In all continents except Africa, the previous

estimates are within the 1 standard deviation of RS and RS + METEO FLUXCOM products. In Africa, LE is higher in FLUXCOM products, which contributes to the slightly larger global ET in

FLUXCOM than previous estimates. For Rn, the differences are relatively smaller in all continents and uncertainties obtained from the FLUXCOM ensemble are small compared to those of LE and

H. The uncertainty estimates of LE in both RS and RS + METEO energy fluxes show distinct seasonal variation in all continents. In Africa and South America, the uncertainty ranges are larger

in all seasons. In other continents, the uncertainty ranges are larger in the peak season and generally scale with flux magnitude. We have further summarized mean annual energy budgets with

uncertainties for the vegetated area of the globe and over all continents (Fig. 7a). The global and continental energy budgets of the RS and RS + METEO products are consistent with each

other. Globally, both RS and RS + METEO products show that most of Rn is partitioned to LE. Only Oceania (dominated by Australia) shows more sensible than latent heat. In Africa, LE is

significantly larger than H due to the exclusion of the non-vegetated Sahara Desert, where H is expected to be much larger than LE. The mean annual imbalance of the ensemble medians, defined

as Rn-LE-H is close to zero. This indicates that the tower-to-globe scaling across all energy balance correction variants is robust and did not introduce sizeable biases. Inspecting

relative uncertainties of the mean global and continental fluxes (Fig. 7b), we find that Rn is typically constrained by less than 5%, uncertainties for latent and sensible heat fluxes are

typically on the order of 10–20%. The contributions of the different factors (energy balance correction, machine learning method, and meteorological forcing) to the total ensemble spread

varies by flux and continent (Supplementary Information 1). For comparisons with published global estimates, we scaled FLUXCOM values using estimates of H and Rn for hot and cold deserts

(see Methods). We obtained mean global values of H of 2.80 ± 0.36 MJ m−2 day−1 for the RS products and 3.07 ± 0.41 MJ m−2 day−1 for the RS + METEO products, or, equivalently, 32.39 ± 4.17

and 35.58 ± 4.75 W m−2 (uncertainties taken from Fig. 7a) respectively. These values are larger than the 27 W m−2 reported by Trenberth _et al_.47 and somewhat smaller than the range of

36–40 W m−2 given by Siemann _et al_.45. FLUXCOM estimates are however in good agreement with the values of Wild _et al_.4 of 32 W m−2 as a best estimate derived as energy budget residual of

observational data and the value of 38 ± 6 W m−2 estimated by L’Ecuyer _et al_.3 based on constraining the global energy and water cycles by multiple data streams. Scaled FLUXCOM Rn (see

Methods) yields 75.49 ± 1.39 W m−2 and 77.52 ± 2.43 W m−2 for RS and RS + METEO, respectively, which is in excellent agreement with the best estimate of L’Ecuyer _et al_.3 of 76 W m−2.

Because latent heat, as evapotranspiration (ET), is also a critical component of the water cycle, we summarize the continental and global ET from FLUXCOM (Fig. 8). Globally, the ET from RS

and RS + METEO are 75.6 ± 9.8 and 76 ± 6.8 × 103 km3 yr−1, respectively. These global ET are at the upper end of previously reported values (65–75 × 103 km3 yr−1). Several studies9,48,49,50

indicated global ET in the range of 65 to 70 × 103 km3 yr−1. More recently, global ET values in the range of 70–75 × 103 km3 yr−1 were reported51,52,53. Interestingly, global ET estimated

from an energy balance perspective also tend to yield values at the upper end of commonly reported values such as Trenberth47 (73 × 103 km3 yr−1), L’Ecuyer3 (72 ± 5 × 103 km3 yr−1), and

Wild4 (72 within a range of 64–85 × 103 km3 yr−1). Around three quarters of the global ET is equally distributed across Africa (23.2–25.5%), Asia (25.9–28.1%) and South America (23.7–26.1%),

while the lowest contribution is from Oceania (4.4–5.1%), in both RS and RS + METEO (Fig. 8a). Both RS and RS + METEO show sizeable uncertainty ranges of global and continental ET (Fig. 

8b). In all continents, the ensemble medians of RS and RS + METEO overlap. In Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North America, RS + METEO has larger uncertainties than RS, while the opposite is

true in Africa and South America. USAGE NOTES For cross-consistency analysis and evaluation of LSM simulations, we suggest focusing on spatial patterns of mean annual and mean seasonal

fluxes. For comparison with offline LSM simulations we recommend using products from the RS + METEO setup forced with corresponding meteorological forcing to minimize deviations due to

different climate input data. However, as RS + METEO inputs prescribe seasonal and spatial land surface properties–through mean seasonal cycles and PFT-based tiling respectively–full

consistency with forcing-specific LSM simulations cannot be achieved. For example, while fAPAR is prescribed by remote sensing covariates in FLUXCOM, it may be simulated by the LSM from the

climate forcing. Since products from the RS setup are not subject to uncertain meteorological inputs, the RS products may be preferable for energy and water budget studies or for evaluating

the choice of climate input driver on LSM simulations. Patterns of interannual variations in these products are expected to be more uncertain than spatial patterns of mean annual or seasonal

fluxes. Experiences from FLUXCOM carbon fluxes suggest that magnitudes of interannual variations54 are also likely too small in the energy flux products, and a normalization of the monthly

or annual anomalies is recommended when comparing for example with LSM simulations. For example, global grids of LSM and FLUXCOM anomalies could be normalized by their standard deviations of

the globally integrated anomaly time series to preserve spatiotemporal patterns but to remove differences in variance. Note that interannual variations in the RS + METEO products originate

exclusively from direct effects of changing meteorological forcing with remotely sensed surface properties being constant between years. This is particularly important for studies on

phenology or the impact of land surface changes on land-atmosphere energy fluxes, where we would recommend using RS setup products. Low frequency variations and trends require very cautious

interpretation as factors expected to cause trends, most importantly the physiological effects of rising CO2, are not accounted for. Trends in land surface properties such as greening or

browning are not accounted for in the RS + METEO setup since mean seasonal cycles of MODIS land products were used here. In comparison, the RS products do have these trends included, but due

to issues with sensor age-based drift in MODIS reflectances, caution is warranted. The energy flux densities of FLUXCOM product are defined per vegetated area in each grid cell. This needs

to be considered when calculating global and continental budgets, in particular for sensible heat and net radiation where these fluxes have sizeable magnitudes over non-vegetated areas (see

Technical validation). The land fraction provided with the FLUXCOM data should be multiplied with the flux densities for a correct accounting of fluxes over land. Please note that FLUXCOM

data should not additionally be multiplied with grid cell specific vegetated area fraction as we assume that varying vegetation cover is implicit in the used remote sensing data. The primary

intended use of the provided vegetated area fraction data is for comparisons with LSM outputs, e.g. to ensure that the comparison includes only grid cells with (nearly) full vegetation

cover in FLUXCOM and LSM simulations. When using FLUXCOM ensemble members to address questions related to the energy balance and its uncertainty, it must be considered that only certain

combinations of energy balance corrected latent and sensible heat fluxes correspond to energy balance closure: i) LENONE and HRES, ii) LERES and HNONE, and iii) LEBWR and HBWR. All other

combinations result in under or over-closure of the energy balance and should not be considered. The ensemble products presented here pool over all energy balance correction variants such

that the energy balance is closed from a conceptual point of view. Remaining closure errors originate from upscaling errors from site to globe. FLUXCOM ensemble products provide the median

absolute deviation of ensemble members per grid cell and time step which might be scaled to a robust estimate of the standard deviation of a normal distribution by multiplying with 1.4826. A

propagation of this spatially and temporally explicit uncertainty to a temporal aggregated (e.g. mean annual) or spatial (e.g. continental) uncertainty would require assumptions on error

co-variances in space and time. In such cases, we recommend to perform the desired aggregation for each ensemble member separately and subsequently take the spread of the aggregated ensemble

members as the uncertainty metric. If users require a different combination of ensemble members other than those presented here, have questions or want to give feedback, please contact

Martin Jung ([email protected]). CODE AVAILABILITY Python code to synthesise the results and to generate the figures of FLUXCOM results can be obtained through the public repository at

https://git.bgc-jena.mpg.de/skoirala/fluxcom_ef_figures. MATLAB code for generating the flux products and ensemble estimates is available on request to Martin Jung ([email protected])

for the sake of reproducibility. The collaborative nature of the FLUXCOM initiative and the demanding computing resulted in complex and large amounts of code that was customized to the HPC

and file system of MPI-BGC and is therefore challenging to use. Code for processing MODIS satellite data is available on request to Kazuhito Ichii ([email protected]). REFERENCES * Jimenez,

C. _et al_. Global intercomparison of 12 land surface heat flux estimates. _Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres_ 116, D02102 (2011). ADS  Google Scholar  * Mueller, B. _et al_.

Benchmanrk products for land evapotranspiration: LandFlux-EVAL multi-data set synthesis. _Hydrology and Earth System Sciences_ 17, 3707–3720 (2013). ADS  Google Scholar  * L’Ecuyer, T. S.

_et al_. The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early Twenty-First Century. _Journal of Climate_ 28, 8319–8346 (2015). ADS  Google Scholar  * Wild, M. _et al_. The energy balance

over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models. _Climate Dynamics_ 44, 3393–3429 (2014). Google Scholar  * Zhang, Y. _et al_. A Climate Data Record

(CDR) for the global terrestrial water budget: 1984–2010. _Hydrology and Earth System Sciences_ 22, 241–263 (2018). ADS  Google Scholar  * Baldocchi, D. TURNER REVIEW No 15. ‘Breathing’ of

the terrestrial biosphere: lessons learned from a global network of carbon dioxide flux measurement systems. _Australian Journal of Botany_ 56, 1–26 (2008). CAS  Google Scholar  * Stoy, P.

C. _et al_. A data-driven analysis of energy balance closure across FLUXNET research sites: The role of landscape scale heterogeneity. _Agricultural and Forest Meteorology_ 171–172, 137–152

(2013). ADS  Google Scholar  * Jung, M., Reichstein, M. & Bondeau, A. Towards global empirical upscaling of FLUXNET eddy covariance observations: validation of a model tree ensemble

approach using a biosphere model. _Biogeosciences_ 6, 2001–2013 (2009). ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  * Jung, M. _et al_. Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to

limited moisture supply. _Nature_ 467, 951–954 (2010). ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Jung, M. _et al_. Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and

sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations. _Journal of Geophysical Research - Biogeosciences_ 116, G00J07 (2011). Google Scholar  * Bonan, G. B.

_et al_. Improving canopy processes in the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4) using global flux fields empirically inferred from FLUXNET data. _Journal of Geophysical Research -

Biogeosciences_ 116, G02014 (2011). ADS  Google Scholar  * Draper, C. S., Reichle, R. H. & Koster, R. D. Assessment of MERRA-2 Land Surface Energy Flux Estimates. _Journal of Climate_

31, 671–691 (2018). ADS  Google Scholar  * Swenson, S. C. & Lawrence, D. M. Assessing a dry surface layer-based soil resistance parameterization for the Community Land Model using GRACE

and FLUXNET-MTE data. _Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres_ 119, 10,299–10,312 (2014). Google Scholar  * Wang, G. _et al_. On the development of a coupled regional

climate–vegetation model RCM–CLM–CN–DV and its validation in Tropical Africa. _Climate Dynamics_ 46, 515–539 (2015). ADS  Google Scholar  * Barman, R., Jain, A. K. & Liang, M.

Climate-driven uncertainties in modeling terrestrial energy and water fluxes: a site-level to global-scale analysis. _Global Change Biology_ 20, 1885–900 (2014). ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  * Rakovec, O. _et al_. Multiscale and Multivariate Evaluation of Water Fluxes and States over European River Basins. _Journal of Hydrometeorology_ 17, 287–307 (2016). ADS  Google Scholar 

* Springer, A., Kusche, J., Hartung, K., Ohlwein, C. & Longuevergne, L. New Estimates of Variations in Water Flux and Storage over Europe Based on Regional (Re)Analyses and Multisensor

Observations. _Journal of Hydrometeorology_ 15, 2397–2417 (2014). ADS  Google Scholar  * Stegehuis, A. I., Teuling, A. J., Ciais, P., Vautard, R. & Jung, M. Future European temperature

change uncertainties reduced by using land heat flux observations. _Geophysical Research Letters_ 40, 2242–2245 (2013). ADS  Google Scholar  * Stegehuis, A. I. _et al_. Summer temperatures

in Europe and land heat fluxes in observation-based data and regional climate model simulations. _Climate Dynamics_ 41, 455–477 (2013). ADS  Google Scholar  * Ma, H. Y. _et al_. CAUSES: On

the Role of Surface Energy Budget Errors to the Warm Surface Air Temperature Error Over the Central United States. _Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres_ 123, 2888–2909 (2018). ADS 

Google Scholar  * Koster, R. D. _et al_. The Pattern Across the Continental United States of Evapotranspiration Variability Associated with Water Availability. _Frontiers in Earth Science_ 3

(2015). * Tramontana, G. _et al_. Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites with regression algorithms. _Biogeosciences_ 13, 4291–4313 (2016). ADS  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Reichstein, M. _et al_. On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: review and improved algorithm. _Global Change Biology_ 11,

1424–1439 (2005). ADS  Google Scholar  * Jung, M. & Zscheischler, J. A guided hybrid genetic algorithm for feature selection with expensive cost functions. _Procedia Computer Science_

18, 2337–2346 (2013). Google Scholar  * Twine, T. E. _et al_. Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland. _Agricultural and Forest Meteorology_ 103, 279–300 (2000). ADS

  Google Scholar  * Wan, Z. New refinements and validation of the MODIS Land-Surface Temperature/Emissivity products. _Remote Sensing of Environment_ 112, 59–74 (2008). ADS  Google Scholar 

* Friedl, M. A. _et al_. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. _Remote Sensing of Environment_ 114, 168–182 (2010). ADS  Google

Scholar  * Myneni, R. B. _et al_. Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. _Remote Sensing of Environment_ 83, 214–231 (2002). ADS 

Google Scholar  * Schaaf, C. B. _et al_. First operational BRDF, albedo nadir reflectance products from MODIS. _Remote Sensing of Environment_ 83, 135–148 (2002). ADS  Google Scholar  *

Huete, A. _et al_. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. _Remote Sensing of Environment_ 83, 195–213 (2002). ADS  Google Scholar  * Gao,

B.-C. NDWI—A normalized difference water index for remote sensing of vegetation liquid water from space. _Remote Sensing of Environment_ 58, 257–266 (1996). ADS  Google Scholar  * Frouin, R.

& Murakami, H. Estimating photosynthetically available radiation at the ocean surface from ADEOS-II global imager data. _Journal of Oceanography_ 63, 493–503 (2007). Google Scholar  *

Saigusa, N. _et al_. Impact of meteorological anomalies in the 2003 summer on Gross Primary Productivity in East Asia. _Biogeosciences_ 7, 641–655 (2010). ADS  Google Scholar  * Ueyama, M.

_et al_. Change in surface energy balance in Alaska due to fire and spring warming, based on upscaling eddy covariance measurements. _Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences_ 119,

1947–1969 (2014). ADS  Google Scholar  * Weedon, G. P. _et al_. The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data. _Water

Resources Research_ 50, 7505–7514 (2014). ADS  Google Scholar  * Kim, H. _Data Integration and Analysis Systems (DIAS)_, https://doi.org/10.20783/DIAS.501 (2017). * Wei, Y. _et al_. The

North American Carbon Program Multi-scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project – Part 2: Environmental driver data. _Geoscientific Model Development_ 7, 2875–2893 (2014).

ADS  Google Scholar  * Doelling, D. R. _et al_. Geostationary Enhanced Temporal Interpolation for CERES Flux Products. _Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology_ 30, 1072–1090 (2013).

ADS  Google Scholar  * Huffman, G. J. _et al_. Global Precipitation at One-Degree Daily Resolution from Multisatellite Observations. _Journal of Hydrometeorology_ 2, 36–50 (2001). ADS 

Google Scholar  * Martens, B. _et al_. GLEAMv3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. _Geoscientific ModelDevelopment_ 10, 1903–1925 (2017). ADS  Google Scholar  *

Mueller, B. _et al_. Benchmark products for land evapotranspiration: LandFlux-EVAL multi-data set synthesis. _Hydrology and Earth System Sciences_ 17, 3707–3720 (2013). ADS  Google Scholar 

* Priestley, C. H. B. & Taylor, R. J. Assessment of Surface Heat-Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters. _Monthly Weather Review_ 100, 81 (1972). ADS  Google Scholar  *

Valente, F., David, J. S. & Gash, J. H. C. Modelling interception loss for two sparse eucalypt and pine forests in central Portugal using reformulated Rutter and Gash analytical models.

_Journal of Hydrology_ 190, 141–162 (1997). ADS  Google Scholar  * Sachs, L. _Angewandte Statistik: Anwendung Statistischer Methoden_. (Springer, Berlin, 1996). * Siemann, A. L., Chaney, N.

& Wood, E. F. Development and Validation of a Long-Term, Global, Terrestrial Sensible Heat Flux Dataset. _Journal of Climate_ 31, 6073–6095 (2018). ADS  Google Scholar  * Jung, M. _et

al_. FLUXCOM Global Land Energy Fluxes. _Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry_, _Jena_, https://doi.org/10.17871/FLUXCOM_EnergyFluxes_v1 (2018). * Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T. &

Kiehl, J. Earth’s Global Energy Budget. _Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society_ 90, 311–324 (2009). ADS  Google Scholar  * Miralles, D. G. _et al_. Global land-surface evaporation

estimated from satellite-based observations. _Hydrology and Earth System Sciences_ 15, 453–469 (2011). ADS  Google Scholar  * Oki, T. & Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world

water resources. _Science_ 313, 1068–1072 (2006). ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Schlosser, C. A. & Gao, X. Assessing Evapotranspiration Estimates from the Second Global Soil

Wetness Project (GSWP-2) Simulations. _Journal of Hydrometeorology_ 11, 880–897 (2010). ADS  Google Scholar  * Miralles, D. G. _et al_. The WACMOS-ET project – Part 2: Evaluation of global

terrestrial evaporation data sets. _Hydrology and Earth System Sciences_ 20, 823–842 (2016). ADS  Google Scholar  * Wang-Erlandsson, L., van der Ent, R. J., Gordon, L. J. & Savenije, H.

H. G. Contrasting roles of interception and transpiration in the hydrological cycle – Part 1: Temporal characteristics over land. _Earth System Dynamics_ 5, 441–469 (2014). ADS  Google

Scholar  * Zhang, K. _et al_. Vegetation Greening and Climate Change Promote Multidecadal Rises of Global Land Evapotranspiration. _Scientific Reports_ 5, 15956 (2015). ADS  CAS  PubMed 

PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Jung, M. _et al_. Compensatory water effects link yearly global land CO2 sink changes to temperature. _Nature_ 541, 516–520 (2017). ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google

Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS G.C.V. was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the ERC Consolidator Grant ERC-CoG-2014 SEDAL (GA 647423). G.T. was supported

by the BACI project funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (GA 640176). D.P. thanks the support of the RINGO project funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 Programme (GA

703944). AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Hans-Knöll-Str. 10, 07745, Jena, Germany Martin Jung, Sujan Koirala, Ulrich Weber, Fabian

Gans & Markus Reichstein * Center for Environmental Remote Sensing, Chiba University, 1-33, Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba, 236-0001, Japan Kazuhito Ichii * Center for Global Environmental

Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2, Onogawa, Tsukuba, 305-0053, Japan Kazuhito Ichii * Image Processing Laboratory (IPL), C/Catedrático José Beltrán, 2. 46980

Paterna, Universitat de València, València, Spain Gustau Camps-Valls * University of Tuscia DIBAF, Via C. de Lellis snc, 01100, Viterbo, Italy Dario Papale & Gianluca Tramontana * Woods

Hole Research Center, 149 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA Christopher Schwalm Authors * Martin Jung View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Sujan Koirala View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ulrich Weber View author publications You can also search for this

author inPubMed Google Scholar * Kazuhito Ichii View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Fabian Gans View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Gustau Camps-Valls View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Dario Papale View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Christopher Schwalm View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Gianluca

Tramontana View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Markus Reichstein View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS M.R. and D.P. initiated the FLUXCOM initiative at a RECCAP meeting in Italy in 2010. M.J. coordinated the FLUXCOM initiative, designed the study, and drafted the

manuscript. S.K. analysed the results and produced the figures. U.W. helped with data processing. F.G. helped with coding of data processing. K.I. contributed the processing of satellite

data and with machine learning code. D.P., G.T., C.S. and G.C.V. contributed machine learning code. M.J., S.K., K.I., D.P., G.T., C.S., G.C.V. and M.R. contributed intellectual input, and

edited the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Martin Jung. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ISA-TAB METADATA FILE DOWNLOAD METADATA FILE

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits

use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the

Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated

otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds

the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative

Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ applies to the metadata files associated with this article. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS

ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Jung, M., Koirala, S., Weber, U. _et al._ The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes. _Sci Data_ 6, 74 (2019).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8 Download citation * Received: 11 December 2018 * Accepted: 17 April 2019 * Published: 27 May 2019 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8

SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to

clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative