3.8 Article

An empirical investigation of convective planetary boundary layer evolution and its relationship with the land surface

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 917-932

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JAM2240.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relationships among convective planetary boundary layer (PBL) evolution and land surface properties are explored using data from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Cloud and Radiation Test Bed in the southern Great Plains. Previous attempts to infer surface fluxes from observations of the PBL have been constrained by difficulties in accurately estimating and parameterizing the conservation equation and have been limited to multiday averages or small samples of daily case studies. Using radiosonde and surface flux data for June, July, and August of 1997, 1999, and 2001, a conservation approach was applied to 132 sets of daily observations. Results highlight the limitations of using this method on daily time scales caused by the diurnal variability and complexity of entrainment. A statistical investigation of the relationship among PBL and both land surface and near-surface properties that are not explicitly included in conservation methods indicates that atmospheric stability in the layer of PBL growth is the most influential variable controlling PBL development. Significant relationships between PBL height and soil moisture, 2-m potential temperature, and 2-m specific humidity are also identified through this analysis, and it is found that 76% of the variance in PBL height can be explained by observations of stability and soil water content. Using this approach, it is also possible to use limited observations of the PBL to estimate soil moisture on daily time scales without the need for detailed land surface parameterizations. In the future, the general framework that is presented may provide a means for robust estimation of near-surface soil moisture and land surface energy balance over regional scales.

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

3.8
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