4.7 Article

Determination of Planetary Boundary Layer height with Lidar Signals Using Maximum Limited Height Initialization and Range Restriction (MLHI-RR)

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs12142272

关键词

lidar; planetary boundary layer height; multiple-layer interference; radiosonde

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC1400900, 2016YFC0200700]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41775023]
  3. Excellent Young Scientist Program of Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science of China [LR19D050001]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  5. State Key Laboratory of Modern Optical Instrumentation Innovation Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) is a vital parameter to characterize the surface convection, which determines the diffusion of air pollutants. The accurate inversion of PBLH is extremely important for the study of aerosol concentrations, in order to predict air quality and provide weather forecast. Aerosol lidar, a powerful remote sensing instrument for detecting the characteristics of atmospheric temporal and spatial evolution, can continuously retrieve the planetary boundary layer (PBL) and obtain high resolution measurements. However, multi-layer conditions, including one or more layers of aerosol, or cloud above the PBL, can seriously interfere the accuracy of PBLH determined by lidar. A new technique of maximum limited height initialization and range restriction (MLHI-RR) is proposed to eliminate the impact of multi-layer conditions on PBLH determination. Four widely used methods for deriving PBLH are utilized, in addition to the MLHI-RR constraint. Comparisons demonstrate that the proposed technique can determine the PBLH in multi-layer conditions with higher accuracy. The proposed technique requires no affiliate information besides lidar signals, which provide a convenient method for PBLH determination under complicated conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据