the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Atmospheric stability from microwave radiometer observations for on/offshore wind energy applications
Abstract. Atmospheric stability controls the evolution of wind turbine wakes, and thus the yield and performance of wind parks. For estimations of wind park power output and for improving analyses of wind park wakes, crucial parameters were found to be profiles of atmospheric temperature and stability metrics. Atmospheric temperature profiles are available from numerical weather prediction (NWP) models or are measured in-situ by balloon-borne sensors, but can also be estimated from the ground using radiometric observations. This paper reviews the stability metrics useful for monitoring wind park performances and provides a quantitative assessment of the value of NWP model data for estimating these metrics. This paper also extends previous work, quantifying the performances of microwave radiometer (MWR) observations to estimate stability metrics from surface-based observations in three climatological conditions (marine, continental, and polar) and with different instrument types, either situated on land or ocean. Two NWP systems (DOWA and NEWA) have been evaluated against temperature profiles measured by offshore met masts in the 30–100 m layer from the surface. Systematic differences are ~0.3–0.5 K, with no clear dependence on the stability class. Conversely, both models show larger random differences in stable than in unstable conditions. Root-mean-square (RMS) differences were within 1 K for DOWA, while it exceeded 2 K for NEWA in very stable conditions. For temperature gradients in the 50–100 m vertical layer, the mean absolute error (MAE) was ~3.4–4.2 K/km, with 5.8–8.4 RMS, and 0.7–0.8 correlation. From the six datasets of MWR and radiosonde observations considered here, temperature profiles mostly agree within ~0.5 K near the surface increasing to ~1.5 K at 2 km. Substantial differences are found between MWR performances in retrieving temperature and potential temperature gradients (50–300 m) onshore and offshore. Onshore, potential temperature gradients agree with 2.1–3.4 K/km MAE and 0.7–0.9 correlation. Offshore, both MAE (0.9–1.9 K/km) and correlation (0.3–0.4) are relatively lower, although performances tend to improve using elevation scanning retrievals. Considering all the datasets, reported MAE are 0.9–3.4 K/km, while RMS are 1.2–5.1 K/km. Thus, the uncertainty of MWR for temperature and potential temperature gradients in the 50–300 m vertical layer is ~0.5–4.3 K/km. The relatively lower performances off-shore may be attributed to the training of the inversion method, which may under-represent the peculiar off-shore conditions, and the ship movements, which can impact low-elevation observations. These considerations suggest that appropriate dedicated training and elevation scanning with ship movement compensation may be required for MWR to better catch potential temperature gradients typical of offshore conditions.
- Preprint
(4711 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(22519 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-186', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Dec 2024
A nice discussion / evaluation of wind park requirements, and an assessment of different microwave ground based observations, I have only some minor comments, shown below with Page Line:
- Figure 1: What is the difference between the top 2 plots (besides that they compare to different model data)? Are these different locations, thus the measurements are not the same? And might be good to include some general statistics in all the plots, as text (as done later in other plots, e.g. correlation).
- Figure 2: the manuscript has top 1 plot, bottom 2, not left and right.
- P9L216: The presented results show that global NWP / re-analysis models can be used, but that is unlikely to be valid globally. I assume ERA5 is particularly good in areas where a lot of measurements are available.
- Section 2.2: Is ECMWF actually assimilating these tower measurements? If yes, then they are not independent when doing validations.
- P9L226: Are these 2 models providing data exactly on the vertical levels of the tower? Or better/worse? Any averaging required to align the resolutions?
- Figure 5: Might be more instructive to use a range that is within the atmospheric conditions (I assume, -100K change over 1km is not really a valid range), and print the lengthy legend on the side of the plot?
Also, are you doing some outlier detection and removal? Sometimes the model seems to be "stuck" at about -20K/km, while the tower detects values up to 150K/km. - Figure 6: (a) I assume the figures should somewhere have the a, b, c, d label?; (b) the map plot should have lat/lon labels; (c) the lower left plots have no y label units.
- Figure 7: Again, the a, b, c, d labels are missing, making it difficult to understand this already complex plot compilation.
- P22L516: Just interpolation to the radiosonde data? The resolution of MW is much lower, thus you could also average the sonde data (or fold it with an averaging kernel of the MW).
- Figure 9: Is there a possibility to split this into stable/unstable atmospheric conditions?
- P23L540: Resolve a.g.l. somewhere.
- P24L552: Sorry, I might have missed it above, but how are MW data sets averaged in time to the sonde times? And they provide different scanning modes, as indicated above. Does that influence the averaging? And are you considering the ascent times, or just an average time of the sonde?
- Figure 11: Is there a correlation difference between stable and unstable conditions?
- P25L588: Any comment regarding the different seasons being used? And with 4 sondes, you'll also capture different diurnal variations, compared to the 2 sondes at GRA.
- Figure 12: Maybe be consistent in using titles of the plots. Regarding panel a, the agreement is remarkable between 300m to 700m. Is there any use of sonde data in the MW retrieval?
- Figure 13: Maybe also include titles? No, after further reading, please use titles, so that the campaign/site is easy identifiable. And regarding presentation, maybe make a blank plot c, write no data into it?
- P29L622: While reading this: are these MW retrievals all consistent? Or each uses its own retrieval setup? If the setups are different, what is the impact on the assessed performance and uncertainty?
- P30L647: I think this is the first time, a quality control is mentioned. What does it consist of, and is it used for other data sets too (see also comment above)?
- P30L663: How robust is this improve correlation? There is one data point at about 30K/km for scanning. Do you still get good correlation if that data point is removed?
- P30L668: Okay, here is finally some remark on the different retrieval methods. As these seem to vary quite a bit, I think they should be shortly mentioned, maybe in the section where the instruments are introduced.
- P31L693: Not for this work, but it would be a very good follow on work, to assess these different instruments / locations / seasons with the same retrieval algorithm. -> saw you identified the need in the conclusion. Good.
- Table 3: Here AGL is used. Is that introduced somewhere?
- P32L703: While reading these different gradients - is there actually a limit what gradient can be detected by which instrument, as they do differ in observation capability, e.g. such as the number of channels, polarisation, etc?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-186-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-186', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jan 2025
Review for AMT-2024-186
Title: “Atmospheric stability from microwave radiometer observations for on/offshore wind energy applications”
Authors: Domenico Cimini, Rémi Gandoin, Stephanie Fiedler, Claudia Acquistapace, Andrea Balotti, Sabrina Gentile, Edoardo Geraldi, Christine Knist, Pauline Martinet, Saverio T. Nilo, Giandomenico Pace, Bernhard Pospichal, Filomena Romano
General comments:
The study presented in this manuscript first reviews stability metrics derived by NWP models and reanalysis, useful for wind energy. Second, it quantifies the performances of different microwave radiometers at estimating stability metrics on land and offshore. The manuscript is relevant, well written and easy to read. I think it fits well in the scope of AMT. I suggest only some minor modifications and to include some additional information. For instance, some more info on retrievals’ and calibration’s procedures, a-priori or radiosonde dataset used in the retrievals, radiosonde type, should be provided.
The title of the manuscript does not mention the first part of the study. The authors might want to consider if to mention this as well.
Specific comments:
Page 1, Abstract, line 32: Include units for RMS.
Page 5, line 138: “Measurement data came from the FINO1, FINO2 and FINO3 met masts”. How are these data used in the before mentioned NWP models? Are they assimilated?
Page 6, Figure 1 caption: Describe the pink line in the caption of the figure. Also, in figures with multiple panels, a), b) c)… would be useful.
Page 7, line 194: How id the boundary-layer height determined during stable vs unstable conditions?
Page 8, Figure 2 caption: Panels are ‘top’ and ‘bottom’, not ‘left’ and ‘right’. Also, in the caption you say ‘(8 and 12 m/s, 207 respectively)’, but in the title of the panels you say ‘4 +/- 0.5’ and 8 +/- 0.5’.
Page 11, Figure 4 caption: This is another figure with multiple panels, where a), b) c)… would be useful.
Page 11, Figure 5: Do the models have hard limits on e lower values of dT/dz?
Page 13, Figure 6: Please include a), b) c)… to the panels. Also, include x- and y-labels to the upper left panel, and y-labels to the lower two left panels.
Page 14, Figure 7: Please include a), b) c)… to the panels. This figure really needs them (same for all the figures in the Supplemental material). For the figures in the supplemental material, it is interesting to see the jumpy behavior of the zi time series, particularly for the FINO1 site. This is why it might be interesting to know how are these zi values obtained.
Page 16, Table 1: I think it’d be useful to list somewhere the retrieval techniques utilized for each of the MWRs? Also, what a-priori were used?
Page 17, after line 368: Could you describe what type/schedule of maintenance, calibration were performed on these MWRs?
Page 19, line 435: How many daily radiosondes per day and at what time?
Page 20, line 473: What type of MWRs?
Page 23, Section 4: Would it make more sense to add the info on Radiosonde/MWR matchups, radiosonde launch times, radiosonde type, and so on in a table, rater than in the text for each dataset? In this way, you could also remove some of these details from the individual dataset descriptions in Section 3.2.
Page 30, line 655: ‘mostly driven by only one point’. I agree.
Page 32, lines 710-711: No mention to the different method used for the retrievals (and the a-priori used for these) is given up to this point, nor about calibration performed, but I think it would be an useful information to add to the Section with the different dataset descriptions. Good calibrations and adequate a-priori datasets are crucial for MWRs.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-186-RC2
Data sets
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility. 2014, updated hourly. Microwave Radiometer Profiler (MWRP). 2019-01-01 to 2019-03-15, Eastern North Atlantic (ENA) Graciosa Island, Azores, Portugal (C1) M. Cadeddu http://dx.doi.org/10.5439/1025254
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility. 2013, updated hourly. Balloon-Borne Sounding System (SONDEWNPN). 2018-12-31 to 2019-03-16, Eastern North Atlantic (ENA) Graciosa Island, Azores, Portugal (C1) E. Keeler and J. Kyrouac http://dx.doi.org/10.5439/1021460
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
253 | 38 | 5 | 296 | 86 | 9 | 9 |
- HTML: 253
- PDF: 38
- XML: 5
- Total: 296
- Supplement: 86
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1