the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Comparisons and quality control of wind observations in a mountainous city using wind profile radar and the Aeolus satellite
Hua Lu
Wei Zhao
Bojun Liu
Tijian Wang
Bingliang Zhuang
Abstract. Observations of vertical wind in Chongqing, a typical mountainous city in China, are important, but sparse and have low resolution. To obtain more wind profile data, this study matched the Aeolus track with ground-based wind observation sites in Chongqing in 2021. Based on the obtained results, verification and quality control studies were conducted on the wind observations of a wind profile radar (WPR) with radiosonde (RS) data, and a comparison of the Aeolus Mie-cloudy and Rayleigh-clear wind products with WPR data was then performed. The conclusions can be summarized as follows: (1) A clear correlation between the wind observations of WPR and RS was found, with a correlation coefficient (R) of 69.92 %. Their root-mean-square deviation increased with height but decreased by 3–4 km. (2) After quality control of Gaussian filtering (GF) and empirical orthogonal function construction (EOFc, G = 87.23 %) of the WPR data, the R between the WPR and RS reached 76.00 % and 95.44 %, respectively. The vertical distribution showed that GF could better retain the characteristics of WPR wind observations, but with limited improvement in decreasing deviations, whereas EOFc performed better in decreasing deviations, but considerably modified the original characteristics of the wind field, especially regarding intensive vertical wind shear in strong convective weather processes. (3) In terms of the differences between the Aeolus and WPR data, 56.0 % and 67.8 % deviations were observed between ±5 m/s for Rayleigh-clear and Mie-cloudy winds vs. WPR winds, respectively. Vertically, the mean differences of both Rayleigh-clean and Mie-cloudy winds versus WPR winds appeared below 1.5 km, which is attributed to the prevailing quiet and small winds within the boundary layer in Chongqing, such that the movement of molecules and aerosols is mostly affected by irregular turbulence. Additionally, large mean differences of 4–8 km for Mie-cloudy versus WPR winds may be related to the high content of cloud liquid water in the middle troposphere, influenced by the topography of the Tibetan Plateau. (4) The differences in both Rayleigh-clear and Mie-cloudy versus WPR winds had changed. Deviations of 58.9 % and 59.6 % were concentrated between ±5m/s for Rayleigh-clear versus WPR winds with GF and EOFc quality control, respectively. In contrast, 69.1 % and 70.2 % of deviations appeared between ±5 m/s for Rayleigh-clear versus WPR and EOFc WPR winds, respectively. These results shed light on the comprehensive applications of multi-source wind profile data in mountainous cities or areas with sparse ground-based wind observations.
- Preprint
(1609 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Hua Lu et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-152', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Aug 2023
General comments
This study conducted data verification and quality control on wind profile radar and Aeolus wind products, trying to enrich the available wind observations in regions with complex regions. This kind of study is needed to provide more reliable wind observations for both related mechanistic studies and assimilation applications in numerical weather prediction. Generally, this work is quite meaningful and informative. Most results are pretty valuable to atmospheric measurement studies. I would recommend its acceptance for publication after some necessary revisions.
Specific comments
- Line 85: “determining the movement of atmospheric components”, what determining the movement of atmospheric components? Please reorganize this sentence.
- In “2.1 Data”, the location of wind profile radar, radiosonde station, and Aeolus tracks used in this study should be showed in a figure.
- Line 112: “Radar can operate almost automatically” should be “Radars can operate almost automatically”, as there are two radars.
- In “2.2 Methods”, The number labels of equations are missing in this manuscript. Please add the labels, so that the readers could find corresponding equations.
- In Table 1: how do the authors get these extreme climate wind values?
- The resolutions of figures in this manuscript should be improved, especially for the label and legends.
- In Figure 2, the red scatter plots and blue ones overlap to a great extent, not very clearly expressing relationships between data. The readers may want some objective statistical data on the figure, like the correlation coefficient, which could be more intuitive to illustrate the relationships.
- In 3.1, the authors should provide more in-depth analysis for data verification during different weather conditions, because as far as we know, wind profile radar observations may be influenced largely by the weather, rainy or not.
- Line 213: “which drift more than 10 kilometers away from the releasing station”, the RS air balls may not always drift more than 10 kilometers away, but in the high levels with large winds, please modify the expression to make it more suitable.
- Line 227: “The number of dots ....”? The authors might want to say “large numbers of dot ...”. Please make correction.
- Line 324-325: “at a height of 1km, the mean difference between these data was maintained within ± 1 m/s”, but it showed large negative deviations below 1.5 km in the figure.
- The paper has some strange expressions and grammatical mistakes in writing, which should be corrected. For example, there are some mix uses of tense. On lines 211-213, the first sentence is past tense, but the second sentence is present tense. Please check throughout the manuscript about this problem.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-152-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Min Xie, 04 Sep 2023
Dear Editors and Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Comparisons and quality control of wind observations in a mountainous city using wind profile radar and the Aeolus satellite” (Manuscript Number: amt-2023-152). The comments are helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully studied these comments and made changes in the manuscript according to reviewers’ comments. Please see Supplement for the detail.
Sincerely,
Authors
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2023-152', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Aug 2023
Please find attached for the comments on AMT-2023-152
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Min Xie, 04 Sep 2023
Dear Editors and Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Comparisons and quality control of wind observations in a mountainous city using wind profile radar and the Aeolus satellite” (Manuscript Number: amt-2023-152). The comments are helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully studied these comments and made changes in the manuscript according to reviewer’s comments. Please see Supplement for the detail Reply.
Sincerely,
Authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Min Xie, 04 Sep 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-152', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Aug 2023
General comments
This study conducted data verification and quality control on wind profile radar and Aeolus wind products, trying to enrich the available wind observations in regions with complex regions. This kind of study is needed to provide more reliable wind observations for both related mechanistic studies and assimilation applications in numerical weather prediction. Generally, this work is quite meaningful and informative. Most results are pretty valuable to atmospheric measurement studies. I would recommend its acceptance for publication after some necessary revisions.
Specific comments
- Line 85: “determining the movement of atmospheric components”, what determining the movement of atmospheric components? Please reorganize this sentence.
- In “2.1 Data”, the location of wind profile radar, radiosonde station, and Aeolus tracks used in this study should be showed in a figure.
- Line 112: “Radar can operate almost automatically” should be “Radars can operate almost automatically”, as there are two radars.
- In “2.2 Methods”, The number labels of equations are missing in this manuscript. Please add the labels, so that the readers could find corresponding equations.
- In Table 1: how do the authors get these extreme climate wind values?
- The resolutions of figures in this manuscript should be improved, especially for the label and legends.
- In Figure 2, the red scatter plots and blue ones overlap to a great extent, not very clearly expressing relationships between data. The readers may want some objective statistical data on the figure, like the correlation coefficient, which could be more intuitive to illustrate the relationships.
- In 3.1, the authors should provide more in-depth analysis for data verification during different weather conditions, because as far as we know, wind profile radar observations may be influenced largely by the weather, rainy or not.
- Line 213: “which drift more than 10 kilometers away from the releasing station”, the RS air balls may not always drift more than 10 kilometers away, but in the high levels with large winds, please modify the expression to make it more suitable.
- Line 227: “The number of dots ....”? The authors might want to say “large numbers of dot ...”. Please make correction.
- Line 324-325: “at a height of 1km, the mean difference between these data was maintained within ± 1 m/s”, but it showed large negative deviations below 1.5 km in the figure.
- The paper has some strange expressions and grammatical mistakes in writing, which should be corrected. For example, there are some mix uses of tense. On lines 211-213, the first sentence is past tense, but the second sentence is present tense. Please check throughout the manuscript about this problem.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-152-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Min Xie, 04 Sep 2023
Dear Editors and Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Comparisons and quality control of wind observations in a mountainous city using wind profile radar and the Aeolus satellite” (Manuscript Number: amt-2023-152). The comments are helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully studied these comments and made changes in the manuscript according to reviewers’ comments. Please see Supplement for the detail.
Sincerely,
Authors
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2023-152', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Aug 2023
Please find attached for the comments on AMT-2023-152
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Min Xie, 04 Sep 2023
Dear Editors and Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions with regard to our manuscript “Comparisons and quality control of wind observations in a mountainous city using wind profile radar and the Aeolus satellite” (Manuscript Number: amt-2023-152). The comments are helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully studied these comments and made changes in the manuscript according to reviewer’s comments. Please see Supplement for the detail Reply.
Sincerely,
Authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Min Xie, 04 Sep 2023
Hua Lu et al.
Hua Lu et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
220 | 52 | 15 | 287 | 8 | 10 |
- HTML: 220
- PDF: 52
- XML: 15
- Total: 287
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1