4.7 Article

Improved retrieval of cloud base heights from ceilometer using a non-standard instrument method

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
卷 202, 期 -, 页码 148-155

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.11.021

关键词

Cloud base height; Ceilometer; Micro-pulse lidar; Value distribution equalization

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41575143]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2013CB955802]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017EYT18, 2017STUD17]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology [2017-ZY-02]
  5. China 1000 Plan young scholar program
  6. Ministry of Science and Technology of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cloud-base height (CBH) is a basic cloud parameter but has not been measured accurately, especially under polluted conditions due to the interference of aerosol. Taking advantage of a comprehensive field experiment in northern China in which a variety of advanced cloud probing instruments were operated, different methods of detecting CBH are assessed. The Micro-Pulse Lidar (MPL) and the Vaisala ceilometer (CL51) provided two types of backscattered profiles. The latter has been employed widely as a standard means of measuring CBH using the manufacturer's operational algorithm to generate standard CBH products (CL51 MAN) whose quality is rigorously assessed here, in comparison with a research algorithm that we developed named value distribution equalization (VDE) algorithm. It was applied to both the profiles of lidar backscattering data from the two instruments. The VDE algorithm is found to produce more accurate estimates of CBH for both instruments and can cope with heavy aerosol loading conditions well. By contrast, CL51 MAN overestimates CBH by 400 m and misses many low level clouds under such conditions. These findings are important given that CL51 has been adopted operationally by many meteorological stations in China.

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