Abstract

<strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> The WPR-LQ-7 is a UHF (1.3575 GHz) wind profiler radar used for routine measurements of the lower troposphere at Shigaraki Middle and Upper (MU) observatory (34.85&deg; N, 136.10&deg; E, Japan) at a vertical resolution of 100 m and a time resolution of 10 min. Following studies carried out with the 46.5 MHz Middle and Upper atmosphere (MU) radar (Luce et al., 2018), we tested models used to estimate turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) dissipation rates &epsilon; from the Doppler spectral width in the altitude range ~0.7 to 4.0 km ASL. For this purpose, we compared LQ-7-derived &epsilon; by using processed data available on line (<a href="http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/blr/shigaraki/data/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/blr/shigaraki/data/</a>) with direct estimates of &epsilon; (&epsilon;<sub><em>U</em></sub>) from DataHawk UAVs. The statistical results reveal the same trends as reported by Luce et al. (2018) with the MU radar, namely: (1) The simple formulation based on dimensional analysis &epsilon;<sub><em>Lout</em></sub>=&sigma;<sup>3 </sup><em>/</em> L<em><sub>out</sub></em>, with L<em><sub>out</sub></em> ~70 m, provides the best statistical agreement with &epsilon;<em><sub>U</sub></em>. (2) The model &epsilon;<sub><em>N</em></sub> predicting a &sigma;<sup>2</sup> <em>N</em> law (<em>N</em> is Brunt-Va&iuml;s&auml;l&auml; frequency) for stably stratified conditions tends to overestimate for &epsilon;<sub><em>U </em></sub>&lt; ~5&nbsp; 10<sup>&minus;4</sup> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>&minus;3</sup> and to underestimate for &epsilon;<sub><em>U</em></sub> &gt; ~5 10<sup>&minus;4</sup> m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>&minus;3</sup>. We also tested a model &epsilon;<em><sub>S</sub></em> predicting a &sigma;<sup>2</sup> <em>S</em> law (<em>S</em> is the vertical shear of horizontal wind) supposed to be valid for low Richardson numbers (<em>Ri</em> = <em>N</em><sup>2 </sup>&frasl; <em>S</em><sup>2</sup>). From the case study of a turbulent layer produced by a Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, we found that &epsilon;<em><sub>S</sub></em> and &epsilon;<sub><em>Lout</em></sub> are both very consistent with &epsilon;<em><sub>U</sub></em>, while &epsilon;<sub><em>N</em></sub> underestimates &epsilon;<em><sub>U</sub></em> in the core of the turbulent layer where <em>N</em> is minimum. We also applied the Thorpe method from data collected from a nearly simultaneous radiosonde and tested an alternative interpretation of the Thorpe length in terms of the Corrsin scale defined for weakly stratified turbulence. A statistical analysis showed that &epsilon;<sub><em>S</em></sub> also provides better statistical agreement with &epsilon;<sub><em>U</em></sub> and is much less biased than &epsilon;<em><sub>N</sub></em>. Combining estimates of <em>N</em> and shear from DataHawk and radar data, respectively, a rough estimate of the Richardson number at a vertical resolution of 100 m (<em>Ri</em><sub>100</sub>) was obtained. We performed a statistical analysis on the <em>Ri</em> dependence of the models. The main outcome is that &epsilon;<sub><em>S</em></sub> compares well with &epsilon;<em><sub>U</sub></em> for low <em>Ri</em><sub>100</sub>'s (<em>Ri</em><sub>100 </sub>&lt; ~1) while &epsilon;<sub><em>N</em></sub> fails. &epsilon;<em><sub>Lout</sub></em> varies as &epsilon;<sub><em>S</em></sub> with <em>Ri</em><sub>100</sub> so that &epsilon;<em><sub>Lout</sub></em> remains the best (and simplest) model in the absence of information on <em>Ri</em>. Also, &sigma; appears to vary as <em>Ri</em><sub>100</sub><sup>&minus;1/2</sup> when <em>Ri</em><sub>100 </sub>&gt; ~0.4 and shows a degree of dependence with <em>S</em><sub>100</sub> otherwise.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call