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
  • [31] Random Sample Fitting Method to Determine the Planetary Boundary Layer Height Using Satellite-Based Lidar Backscatter Profiles
    Du, Lin
    Pan, Ya'ni
    Wang, Wei
    REMOTE SENSING, 2020, 12 (23) : 1 - 18
  • [32] Lidar algorithms and technique in 3D scanning for planetary boundary layer height and single-beam-single-pointing wind speed retrieval
    Pantazis, Alexandros
    Papayannis, Alexandros
    APPLIED OPTICS, 2019, 58 (09) : 2284 - 2293
  • [33] Comparison of Planetary Boundary Layer Height Derived from Lidar in AD-Net and ECMWFs Reanalysis Data over East Asia
    Zhang, Zhijuan
    Mu, Ling
    Li, Chen
    ATMOSPHERE, 2022, 13 (12)
  • [34] PLANETARY BOUNDARY LAYER HEIGHT VARIABILITY OVER ATHENS, GREECE, BASED ON THE SYNERGY OF RAMAN LIDAR AND RADIOSONDE DATA: APPLICATION OF THE KALMAN FILTER AND OTHER TECHNIQUES (2011-2016)
    Alexiou, Dimitrios
    Kokkalis, Panagiotis
    Papayannis, Alexandros
    Rocadenbosch, Francesc
    Argyrouli, Athina
    Tsaknakis, Georgios
    Tzanis, Chris G.
    28TH INTERNATIONAL LASER RADAR CONFERENCE (ILRC 28), 2018, 176
  • [35] Atmospheric Boundary Layer Height: Inter-Comparison of Different Estimation Approaches Using the Raman Lidar as Benchmark
    Summa, Donato
    Vivone, Gemine
    Franco, Noemi
    D'Amico, Giuseppe
    De Rosa, Benedetto
    Di Girolamo, Paolo
    REMOTE SENSING, 2023, 15 (05)
  • [36] Atmosphere Boundary Layer Height (ABLH) Determination under Multiple-Layer Conditions Using Micro-Pulse Lidar
    Dang, Ruijun
    Yang, Yi
    Li, Hong
    Hu, Xiao-Ming
    Wang, Zhiting
    Huang, Zhongwei
    Zhou, Tian
    Zhang, Tiejun
    REMOTE SENSING, 2019, 11 (03):
  • [37] Retrieval of boundary layer height from lidar using extended Kalman filter approach, classic methods, and backtrajectory cluster analysis
    Banks, Robert F.
    Tiana-Alsina, Jordi
    Baldasano, Jose Mara
    Rocadenbosch, Francesc
    REMOTE SENSING OF CLOUDS AND THE ATMOSPHERE XIX AND OPTICS IN ATMOSPHERIC PROPAGATION AND ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS XVII, 2014, 9242
  • [38] Technical note: Boundary layer height determination from lidar for improving air pollution episode modeling: development of new algorithm and evaluation
    Yang, Ting
    Wang, Zifa
    Zhang, Wei
    Gbaguidi, Alex
    Sugimoto, Nobuo
    Wang, Xiquan
    Matsui, Ichiro
    Sun, Yele
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2017, 17 (10) : 6215 - 6225
  • [39] Evaluation of convective boundary layer height estimates using radars operating at different frequency bands
    Franck, Anna
    Moisseev, Dmitri
    Vakkari, Ville
    Leskinen, Matti
    Lampilahti, Janne
    Kerminen, Veli-Matti
    O'Connor, Ewan
    ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, 2021, 14 (11) : 7341 - 7353
  • [40] Methodology to determine the coupling of continental clouds with surface and boundary layer height under cloudy conditions from lidar and meteorological data
    Su, Tianning
    Zheng, Youtong
    Li, Zhanqing
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2022, 22 (02) : 1453 - 1466