1 / 22

The retrieval of the LWC in water clouds: the comparison of Frisch and Radar-Lidar techniques

Third Progress Meeting 24-25 April 2003 , Reading. The retrieval of the LWC in water clouds: the comparison of Frisch and Radar-Lidar techniques. O. A. Krasnov and H. W. J. Russchenberg International Research Centre for Telecommunications-transmission and Radar,

judith-pruitt
Download Presentation

The retrieval of the LWC in water clouds: the comparison of Frisch and Radar-Lidar techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Third Progress Meeting24-25 April 2003, Reading The retrieval of the LWC in water clouds:the comparison of Frisch and Radar-Lidar techniques O. A. Krasnov and H. W. J. Russchenberg International Research Centre for Telecommunications-transmission and Radar, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands. Ph. +31 15 2787544, Fax: +31 15 2784046 E-mail: o.krasnov@irctr.tudelft.nl, : h.w.j.russchenberg@irctr.tudelft.nl

  2. The Radar, Lidar, and Radiometer datasetfrom the Baltex Bridge Cloud (BBC) campaign August 1- September 30, 2001, Cabauw, NL • Radar Reflectivity from the 95 GHz Radar MIRACLE (GKSS) • Lidar Backscattering Coefficient from the CT75K Lidar Ceilometer (KNMI) • Liquid Water Path from the 22 channel MICCY (UBonn) All data were presented in equal time-height grid with time interval 30 sec and height interval 30 m.

  3. The relation between “in-situ” Effective Radius and Radar Reflectivity to Lidar Extinction Ratio for different field campaigns.

  4. Application of the relation for the identification of the Z-LWC relationship

  5. Case study: August 28, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 10.12-11.20 The profiles of measured variables

  6. Case study: August 28, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 10.12-11.20The profiles of Optical Extinction and Radar-Lidar Ratio

  7. Case study: August 28, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 10.12-11.20The Resulting Classification Map (radar and lidar data)

  8. Case study: August 28, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 10.12-11.20Retrieval Results (classification using radar and lidar data)

  9. Frisch’s algorithm • log-normal drop size distribution • concentration and distribution width are constant in the cloud From radiometer’s LWP and radar reflectivity profile:

  10. Case study: August 28, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 10.12-11.20Retrieval Results for Frisch’s algorithm

  11. Case study: August 28, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 10.12-11.20 Histogram of Differences in Retrieval Results for the Frisch’s and the Radar-Lidar algorithm

  12. Difference between LWC that retrieved using Frisch method and retrieved from radar-to-lidar ratio

  13. Case study: August 28, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 10.12-11.20Representation results on the Z-LWC plane Frisch’s fittings Log-Normal DSDN=1000 - 2000 cm-3, s = 0.8N=1000 - 2000 cm-3, s = 0.1

  14. Case: cloud without drizzle

  15. Case study: September 23, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 8.00-10.00 The profiles of measured variables

  16. Case study: September 23, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 8.00-10.00 The profiles of measured variables

  17. Case study: September 23, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 8.00-10.00 The profiles of optical extinction and Radar-Liadr Ratio

  18. Case study: September 23, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 8.00-10.00 The Classification Map (Radar-Lidar, threshold -35 and -25 dB)

  19. Case study: September 23, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 8.00-10.00 The Resulting Classification Map (radar and lidar data)

  20. Atlas Z-LWC relationship

  21. Frisch’s fittings Log-Normal DSDN=1000 - 2000 cm-3, s = 0.8N=1000 - 2000 cm-3, s = 0.1 Case study: September 23, 2001, Cabauw, NL, 8.00-10.00 The results of Frisch’s algorithm application

  22. Conclusions • The Frisch’s technique produce much more water • It does not recognize the presence of in-cloud drizzle • For the log-normal model Frisch’s fitting of Z-LWC relationships shows huge, non-realistic concentrations

More Related