Dana Looschelders, Andreas Christen, Sue Grimmond, Simone Kotthaus, Daniel Fenner, Jean-Charles Dupont, Martial Haeffelin, William Morrison
{"title":"Vaisala CL61激光雷达- ceilometer衰减后向散射、云特性和混合层高度的仪器间变率","authors":"Dana Looschelders, Andreas Christen, Sue Grimmond, Simone Kotthaus, Daniel Fenner, Jean-Charles Dupont, Martial Haeffelin, William Morrison","doi":"10.1002/met.70088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Characterizing inter-instrument variability of sensors is crucial to assessing uncertainties in observational campaigns, networks, and for data assimilation. Here, we co-locate six high signal-to-noise ratio Vaisala CL61 lidar-ceilometers for a period of 10 days to quantify instrument-related differences in several observed variables: profiles of attenuated backscatter, its components (parallel- and cross-polarized backscatter) and the volume linear depolarisation ratio (<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>δ</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\delta $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>), as well as derived cloud variables and mixed-layer height. Analysing intervals between 5 and 60 min, median absolute differences between sensors (AD<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mrow></mrow>\n <mn>50</mn>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {}_{50} $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>) and percentiles (e.g., AD<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mrow></mrow>\n <mn>75</mn>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {}_{75} $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>) are used to quantify instrument related uncertainties. For backscatter and <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>δ</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\delta $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>, we differentiate between conditions with rain, clear sky, and clouds. Here we address instrument precision rather than accuracy, with instrument accuracy assumed. The detected agreement between instruments suggests a distributed measurement network should be capable of providing context for interpretation of spatial differences. If instruments measure accurately, it is possible to resolve spatial differences (e.g., urban–rural) for attenuated backscatter, derived cloud variables and layer heights. However, differences exist and vary with signal-to-noise ratio and atmospheric conditions. The AD<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mrow></mrow>\n <mn>50</mn>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {}_{50} $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> inter-sensor results for 15 min intervals for total cloud-cover fraction (excluding clear sky and fully overcast conditions) is 1.9%, and for cloud base height 7.3 m. Agreement of all cloud variables is better for boundary layer clouds (when first cloud layer <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo><</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ < $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> 4 km agl) than for all five cloud layers recorded by the sensor firmware. The 15 min mixed-layer height AD<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mrow></mrow>\n <mn>50</mn>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {}_{50} $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> is 0 m and the AD<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mrow></mrow>\n <mn>75</mn>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {}_{75} $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> 21.5 m. We show that instrument precipitation flags are in good agreement, but do not link closely with ground-level rainfall observations, hence an alternative algorithm is proposed. We provide quality control recommendations for data processing to improve inter-instrument agreement of cloud variables and mixed-layer height.</p>","PeriodicalId":49825,"journal":{"name":"Meteorological Applications","volume":"32 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/met.70088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-Instrument Variability of Vaisala CL61 Lidar-Ceilometer's Attenuated Backscatter, Cloud Properties and Mixed-Layer Height\",\"authors\":\"Dana Looschelders, Andreas Christen, Sue Grimmond, Simone Kotthaus, Daniel Fenner, Jean-Charles Dupont, Martial Haeffelin, William Morrison\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/met.70088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Characterizing inter-instrument variability of sensors is crucial to assessing uncertainties in observational campaigns, networks, and for data assimilation. Here, we co-locate six high signal-to-noise ratio Vaisala CL61 lidar-ceilometers for a period of 10 days to quantify instrument-related differences in several observed variables: profiles of attenuated backscatter, its components (parallel- and cross-polarized backscatter) and the volume linear depolarisation ratio (<span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mi>δ</mi>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ \\\\delta $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math>), as well as derived cloud variables and mixed-layer height. Analysing intervals between 5 and 60 min, median absolute differences between sensors (AD<span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msub>\\n <mrow></mrow>\\n <mn>50</mn>\\n </msub>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ {}_{50} $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math>) and percentiles (e.g., AD<span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msub>\\n <mrow></mrow>\\n <mn>75</mn>\\n </msub>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ {}_{75} $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math>) are used to quantify instrument related uncertainties. For backscatter and <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mi>δ</mi>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ \\\\delta $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math>, we differentiate between conditions with rain, clear sky, and clouds. Here we address instrument precision rather than accuracy, with instrument accuracy assumed. The detected agreement between instruments suggests a distributed measurement network should be capable of providing context for interpretation of spatial differences. If instruments measure accurately, it is possible to resolve spatial differences (e.g., urban–rural) for attenuated backscatter, derived cloud variables and layer heights. However, differences exist and vary with signal-to-noise ratio and atmospheric conditions. The AD<span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msub>\\n <mrow></mrow>\\n <mn>50</mn>\\n </msub>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ {}_{50} $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> inter-sensor results for 15 min intervals for total cloud-cover fraction (excluding clear sky and fully overcast conditions) is 1.9%, and for cloud base height 7.3 m. Agreement of all cloud variables is better for boundary layer clouds (when first cloud layer <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo><</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ < $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> 4 km agl) than for all five cloud layers recorded by the sensor firmware. The 15 min mixed-layer height AD<span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msub>\\n <mrow></mrow>\\n <mn>50</mn>\\n </msub>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ {}_{50} $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> is 0 m and the AD<span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msub>\\n <mrow></mrow>\\n <mn>75</mn>\\n </msub>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$$ {}_{75} $$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> 21.5 m. We show that instrument precipitation flags are in good agreement, but do not link closely with ground-level rainfall observations, hence an alternative algorithm is proposed. We provide quality control recommendations for data processing to improve inter-instrument agreement of cloud variables and mixed-layer height.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49825,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Meteorological Applications\",\"volume\":\"32 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/met.70088\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Meteorological Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.70088\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Meteorological Applications","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.70088","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
表征传感器的仪器间变率对于评估观测活动、网络和数据同化中的不确定性至关重要。在这里,我们共定位了六个高信噪比的维萨拉CL61激光雷达-ceilometer,为期10天,以量化几个观测变量中仪器相关的差异:衰减后向散射剖面及其分量(平行极化和交叉极化后向散射)和体积线性去极化比(δ $$ \delta $$),以及导出的云变量和混合层高度。分析5至60分钟之间的间隔,传感器之间的绝对差异中位数(ad50 $$ {}_{50} $$)和百分位数(例如,AD 75 $$ {}_{75} $$)用于量化仪器相关的不确定度。对于后向散射和δ $$ \delta $$,我们区分有雨、晴空和有云的条件。这里我们讨论仪器精度而不是准确度,假设仪器精度。检测到的仪器之间的一致性表明,分布式测量网络应该能够为解释空间差异提供背景。如果仪器测量准确,就有可能解决衰减后向散射、导出的云变量和层高的空间差异(例如城乡差异)。然而,差异是存在的,并且随信噪比和大气条件的不同而变化。AD 50 $$ {}_{50} $$传感器间间隔15分钟的总云覆盖分数(不包括晴空和全阴条件)为1.9%, and for cloud base height 7.3 m. Agreement of all cloud variables is better for boundary layer clouds (when first cloud layer < $$ < $$ 4 km agl) than for all five cloud layers recorded by the sensor firmware. The 15 min mixed-layer height AD 50 $$ {}_{50} $$ is 0 m and the AD 75 $$ {}_{75} $$ 21.5 m. We show that instrument precipitation flags are in good agreement, but do not link closely with ground-level rainfall observations, hence an alternative algorithm is proposed. We provide quality control recommendations for data processing to improve inter-instrument agreement of cloud variables and mixed-layer height.
Inter-Instrument Variability of Vaisala CL61 Lidar-Ceilometer's Attenuated Backscatter, Cloud Properties and Mixed-Layer Height
Characterizing inter-instrument variability of sensors is crucial to assessing uncertainties in observational campaigns, networks, and for data assimilation. Here, we co-locate six high signal-to-noise ratio Vaisala CL61 lidar-ceilometers for a period of 10 days to quantify instrument-related differences in several observed variables: profiles of attenuated backscatter, its components (parallel- and cross-polarized backscatter) and the volume linear depolarisation ratio (), as well as derived cloud variables and mixed-layer height. Analysing intervals between 5 and 60 min, median absolute differences between sensors (AD) and percentiles (e.g., AD) are used to quantify instrument related uncertainties. For backscatter and , we differentiate between conditions with rain, clear sky, and clouds. Here we address instrument precision rather than accuracy, with instrument accuracy assumed. The detected agreement between instruments suggests a distributed measurement network should be capable of providing context for interpretation of spatial differences. If instruments measure accurately, it is possible to resolve spatial differences (e.g., urban–rural) for attenuated backscatter, derived cloud variables and layer heights. However, differences exist and vary with signal-to-noise ratio and atmospheric conditions. The AD inter-sensor results for 15 min intervals for total cloud-cover fraction (excluding clear sky and fully overcast conditions) is 1.9%, and for cloud base height 7.3 m. Agreement of all cloud variables is better for boundary layer clouds (when first cloud layer 4 km agl) than for all five cloud layers recorded by the sensor firmware. The 15 min mixed-layer height AD is 0 m and the AD 21.5 m. We show that instrument precipitation flags are in good agreement, but do not link closely with ground-level rainfall observations, hence an alternative algorithm is proposed. We provide quality control recommendations for data processing to improve inter-instrument agreement of cloud variables and mixed-layer height.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Meteorological Applications is to serve the needs of applied meteorologists, forecasters and users of meteorological services by publishing papers on all aspects of meteorological science, including:
applications of meteorological, climatological, analytical and forecasting data, and their socio-economic benefits;
forecasting, warning and service delivery techniques and methods;
weather hazards, their analysis and prediction;
performance, verification and value of numerical models and forecasting services;
practical applications of ocean and climate models;
education and training.