A comprehensive evaluation of planetary boundary layer height retrieval techniques using lidar data under different pollution scenarios

被引:10
|
作者
Wang, Futing [1 ,2 ]
Yang, Ting [1 ,3 ]
Wang, Zifa [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chen, Xi [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Haibo [1 ,2 ]
Guo, Jianping [4 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Atmospher Phys, State Key Lab Atmospher Boundary Layer Phys & Atm, Beijing 100029, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Chinese Acad Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Urban Environm, Ctr Excellence Reg Atmospher Environm, Xiamen 361021, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Acad Meteorol Sci, State Key Lab Severe Weather, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China
基金
国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划);
关键词
Planetary Boundary layer height; Lidar algorithms; Comparison; Diurnal evolution;
D O I
10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105483
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
Lidar is a powerful active remote sensing technique to monitor the planetary boundary layer (PBL), and there have already been many algorithms to retrieve the planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) using aerosol lidars. However, the algorithm suitable for all atmospheric conditions doesn't exist. This study evaluates the capability of nine lidar algorithms under different pollution scenarios in terms of the instantaneous performance and the diurnal evolution, which are derived from classical theories and expressed as GM, LGM, CRGM, IPM, VAR, VGM, WCT, WCTD, and POLARIS in this paper. Based on the nine algorithms, the continuous PBLHs are obtained from the observation dataset of a Beijing urban site in 2017. In order to verify the lidar results, the statical comparison analysis with radiosonde is also presented. On the premise of the inversion hypothesis, such as sufficient mixing in the PBL, the consistency of lidar results was the best, with the difference being not more than 200 m. And what's different from our cognition is that the concentration of pollutants near the ground under the light pollution condition makes the lidar results tend to be consistent. In fact, LGM prefers to get higher PBLHs because of filtering the information near the ground, whereas POLARIS is apt to underestimate unless the actual morphology can be captured by the depolarization ratio. VAR and IPM are more vulnerable to the conspicuous stratification. GM, CRGM, and WCTD have better consistency with radiosonde and capture the evolution characteristic no matter in clean or polluted days. Compared with the clean days, PBLH from lidar algorithms under the polluted condition reduced about 500 m overall, as well as the standard deviation. Generally speaking, the comprehensive comparison provides a reference to choose the proper lidar algorithm when retrieving the PBLH. GM is appropriate for the detection of clean days, while CRGM is robust for polluted days. WCTD is more suitable for the judgment of PBLH in the morning and evening and will underestimate at noon. As to the situation with cloud, WCTD is also the best choice.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [21] Estimating Boundary Layer Height from LiDAR Data under Complex Atmospheric Conditions Using Machine Learning
    Liu, Zhenxing
    Chang, Jianhua
    Li, Hongxu
    Chen, Sicheng
    Dai, Tengfei
    REMOTE SENSING, 2022, 14 (02)
  • [22] Diurnal variation in the near-global planetary boundary layer height from satellite-based CATS lidar: Retrieval, evaluation, and influencing factors
    Li, Yarong
    Li, Jiming
    Xu, Sihang
    Li, Jiayi
    He, Jianjun
    Huang, Jianping
    REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, 2023, 299
  • [23] Retrieval of the planetary boundary layer height from lidar measurements by a deep-learning method based on the wavelet covariance transform
    Mei, Liang
    Wang, Xiaoqi
    Gong, Zhenfeng
    Liu, Kun
    Hua, Dengxin
    Wang, Xiaona
    OPTICS EXPRESS, 2022, 30 (10): : 16297 - 16312
  • [24] Investigation of the Mixing Height in the Planetary Boundary Layer by Using Sodar and Microwave Radiometer Data
    Odintsov, Sergey
    Miller, Eugene
    Kamardin, Andrey
    Nevzorova, Irina
    Troitsky, Arkady
    Schroeder, Mathias
    ENVIRONMENTS, 2021, 8 (11)
  • [25] Lidar algorithms in 3D scanning for atmospheric layering and planetary boundary layer height retrieval: comparison with other techniques (vol 57, pg 8199, 2018)
    Pantazis, Alexandros
    Papayannis, Alexandros
    Georgousis, Georgios
    APPLIED OPTICS, 2019, 58 (07) : 1723 - 1723
  • [26] Determination of Planetary Boundary Layer height with Lidar Signals Using Maximum Limited Height Initialization and Range Restriction (MLHI-RR)
    Zhong, Tianfen
    Wang, Nanchao
    Shen, Xue
    Xiao, Da
    Xiang, Zhen
    Liu, Dong
    REMOTE SENSING, 2020, 12 (14)
  • [27] Automatic determination of the planetary boundary layer height using lidar: One-year analysis over southeastern Spain
    Granados-Munoz, M. J.
    Navas-Guzman, F.
    Bravo-Aranda, J. A.
    Guerrero-Rascado, J. L.
    Lyamani, H.
    Fernandez-Galvez, J.
    Alados-Arboledas, L.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2012, 117
  • [28] Verification of the Planetary Boundary Layer Height Calculated from the Numerical Model Using a Vehicle-Mounted Lidar System
    Park, Chang-Geun
    Nam, Hyoung-Gu
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING, 2020, 36 (05) : 793 - 806
  • [29] A Novel Machine Learning Algorithm for Planetary Boundary Layer Height Estimation Using AERI Measurement Data
    Ye, Jin
    Liu, Lei
    Wang, Qi
    Hu, Shuai
    Li, Shulei
    IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS, 2022, 19
  • [30] ADAPTIVE ESTIMATION OF THE STABLE BOUNDARY-LAYER HEIGHT USING BACKSCATTER LIDAR DATA AND A KALMAN FILTER
    Saeed, Umar
    Rocadenbosch, Francesc
    Crewell, Susanne
    2015 IEEE INTERNATIONAL GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING SYMPOSIUM (IGARSS), 2015, : 3591 - 3594