PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 30, 2024Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres8 citationsOpen Access

Boundary Layer Structures Over the Northwest Atlantic Derived From Airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar and Dropsonde Measurements During the ACTIVATE Campaign

View Full Paper
YXYike XuUniversity of ArizonaBMBrent MitchellQuebec Labrador FoundationRDRubén DelgadoCity College of New York

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Abstract The Planetary Boundary Layer height (PBLH) is essential for studying PBL and ocean‐atmosphere interactions. Marine PBL is usually defined to include a mixed layer (ML) and a capping inversion layer. The ML height (MLH) estimated from the measurements of aerosol backscatter by a lidar was usually compared with PBLH determined from radiosondes/dropsondes in the past, as the PBLH is usually similar to MLH in nature. However, PBLH can be much greater than MLH for decoupled PBL. Here we evaluate the retrieved MLH from an airborne lidar (HSRL‐2) by utilizing 506 co‐located dropsondes during the ACTIVATE field campaign over the Northwest Atlantic from 2020 to 2022. First, we define and determine the MLH and PBLH from the temperature and humidity profiles of each dropsonde, and find that the MLH values from HSRL‐2 and dropsondes agree well with each other, with a coefficient of determination of 0.66 and median difference of 18 m. In contrast, the HSRL‐2 MLH data do not correspond to dropsonde‐derived PBLH, with a median difference of −47 m. Therefore, we modify the current operational and automated HSRL‐2 wavelet‐based algorithm for PBLH retrieval, decreasing the median difference significantly to −8 m. Further data analysis indicates that these conclusions remain the same for cases with higher or lower cloud fractions, and for decoupled PBLs. These results demonstrate the potential of using HSRL‐2 aerosol backscatter data to estimate both marine MLH and PBLH and suggest that lidar‐derived MLH should be compared with radiosonde/dropsonde‐determined MLH (not PBLH) in general.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Xu et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e67968b6db643587603ef2https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jd039878
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1CALIPSO Lidar Description and Performance Assessment2009 · 653 citations
  2. 2An Objective Method for Deriving Atmospheric Structure from Airborne Lidar Observations2000 · 287 citations
  3. 3Moisture Transport, Lower-Tropospheric Stability, and Decoupling of Cloud-Topped Boundary Layers1997 · 513 citations
  4. 4Evaluation of retrieval methods for planetary boundary layer height based on radiosonde data2021 · 51 citations
  5. 5The Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite – 2 mission: A global geolocated photon product derived from the Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System2019 · 755 citations