研究目的
To assess differing boundary/mixed-layer height measurement methods in moderately polluted and clean environments, focusing on the Vaisala CL51 ceilometer, and to determine how different data-collection methodologies and algorithms compare to each other and to radiosonde-derived boundary-layer heights.
研究成果
The study concluded that data-collection methodology is less important than the processing algorithm for MLH estimation. A common processing algorithm is necessary for lidar-based MLH intercomparisons and ceilometer-network operation. Sonde-derived boundary layer heights were found to be higher than lidar-derived mixed-layer heights. Averaging MLH retrievals to 1 h resolution improved correlation between differing instruments and algorithms.
研究不足
The study is limited by the influence of local meteorology and precipitation events on algorithm performance. The STRAT algorithm showed difficulties during heavy cloud cover and precipitation events, and in exceptionally clean atmospheres. The comparison between CL51 and MPL lidar showed low correlation, possibly due to differences in sensitivity to particle size and geometry.
1:Experimental Design and Method Selection:
The study involved intercomparison of MLH measurement methods at the CAPABLE site in Hampton, Virginia, and during the DISCOVER-AQ field campaign in Denver, Colorado. Two data collection methods for the CL51 ceilometer were compared: BLView software with correction factors and simple terminal emulation logging. The STRAT algorithm was evaluated as an open-source alternative to BLView.
2:Sample Selection and Data Sources:
Data were collected from the CL51 ceilometer, MPL lidar, and meteorological sondes at the CAPABLE site and during the DISCOVER-AQ campaign.
3:List of Experimental Equipment and Materials:
Vaisala CL51 ceilometer, Sigma Space Micropulse lidar (MPL), meteorological sondes from International Met Systems, and ozonesondes from Droplet Measurement Technologies.
4:Experimental Procedures and Operational Workflow:
Data were collected and processed using BLView and a custom Python script for the CL51. MLH retrievals were compared between different algorithms and instruments. Data were averaged to 5 min and 1 h resolutions for analysis.
5:MLH retrievals were compared between different algorithms and instruments. Data were averaged to 5 min and 1 h resolutions for analysis.
Data Analysis Methods:
5. Data Analysis Methods: Data were analyzed using correlation plots, kernel-density estimation, and statistical tests to compare MLH estimates from different methods and algorithms.
独家科研数据包,助您复现前沿成果,加速创新突破
获取完整内容