Exploring the daytime boundary layer evolution based on Doppler spectrum width from multiple coplanar wind lidars during CROSSINN

Babić, Nevio; Adler, Bianca; Gohm, Alexander; Lehner, Manuela; Kalthoff, Norbert

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977

Preprints

08 Sep 2023

| 08 Sep 2023

Exploring the daytime boundary layer evolution based on Doppler spectrum width from multiple coplanar wind lidars during CROSSINN

Nevio Babić, Bianca Adler, Alexander Gohm, Manuela Lehner, and Norbert Kalthoff

Abstract. Over heterogeneous, mountainous terrain, the determination of spatial heterogeneity of any type of a turbulent layer has been known to pose substantial challenges in mountain meteorology. In addition to the combined effect in which buoyancy and shear contribute to the turbulence intensity of such layers, it is well known that mountains add an additional degree of complexity via non-local transport mechanisms, compared to flatter topography. It is therefore the aim of this study to determine the vertical depths of both daytime convectively and shear-driven boundary layers within a fairly wide and deep Alpine Valley during summertime. Specifically, three Doppler lidars deployed during the CROSSINN (Cross-valley flow in the Inn Valley investigated by dual-Doppler lidar measurements) campaign within a single week in August 2019 are used to this end, as they were deployed along a transect nearly perpendicular to the along-valley axis. To achieve this, a bottom-up exceedance threshold method based on turbulent Doppler spectrum width sampled by the three lidars has been developed and calibrated against a more traditional bulk-Richardson number approach applied to radiosonde profiles obtained above the valley floor. The method was found to adequately capture the depths of convective turbulent boundary layers at a 1-min temporal and 50-m spatial resolution across the valley, with the degree of ambiguity increasing once surface convection decayed and upvalley flows gained in intensity over the course of the afternoon and evening hours. Analysis of four Intensive Observation Period (IOP) events elucidated three regimes of the daytime mountain boundary layer in this section of the Inn Valley. Each of the three regimes has been analyzed as a function of surface sensible heat flux $H$, upper-level valley stability $\Gamma$, and upper-level subsidence $w_L$ estimated with the coplanar retrieval method. Finally, the positioning of the three Doppler lidars in a cross-valley configuration enabled one of the most highly spatially and temporally resolved observational convective boundary layer depth data sets during daytime and over complex terrain to date.

Received: 30 Aug 2023 – Discussion started: 08 Sep 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3136 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (3136 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

25 Apr 2024

Exploring the daytime boundary layer evolution based on Doppler spectrum width from multiple coplanar wind lidars during CROSSINN

Nevio Babić, Bianca Adler, Alexander Gohm, Manuela Lehner, and Norbert Kalthoff

Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 609–631, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-609-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-609-2024, 2024

Short summary

Nevio Babić, Bianca Adler, Alexander Gohm, Manuela Lehner, and Norbert Kalthoff

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1977', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Oct 2023
Summary: This study uses co-planar Doppler lidar observations in an across-valley transect during the CROSSINN campaign to (a) present a new approach for estimating the boundary layer depth and (b) applies these lidar observations along with other contextualizing field observations to describe variations in the MoBL structure and evolution. The new boundary layer depth approach relies on merged co-planar observations of the Doppler spectrum width, which is useful for evaluating CBL turbulence irrespective of the scan angle and thus overcomes limitation with other velocity based approaches that work for single column lidar observation but not RHIs. The analysis of the MoBL evolution reveals a mix of expected and unexpected features including terrain following CBLs, persistent thermalling features, and lowering Foehn flows, to name a few.

Overall comments:
The paper contains a number of useful and fascinating observations and techniques, but also suffers from a mix of focus on (a) a new technique and (b) trying to decipher MoBL physical processes. Broadly speaking I find the following strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths:
The use of the merged spectrum width to infer spatial variability in turbulent mixing is a strong contribution to the field of mountain boundary layer observations and alone warrants publication of this work. This approach overcomes the limitation of either using (a) single vertical velocity variance profiles above a fixed site, or (b) requiring dual-Doppler retrievals of the vertical wind, which can not yield the same spatially continuous coverage of the valley atmosphere.

The paper clearly demonstrates that these merged spectrum width data reveal important spatially and temporally varying aspects of the MoBL that are not otherwise possible. The content of the individual figures is stimulating and informative, as is the analysis of them, which gets at many of the complexities of the MoBL as compared to its flat terrain counter part.

Weaknesses:
The bottom up thresholding approach clearly has limitations, many evidenced in the analyses presented and some discussed by the authors. This is especially true in the presence of elevated turbulence sources. At times the approach seems to work great (e.g., Fig. 9a-f, h) whereas at other critical times it does not (e.g., Fig. 9g). Other examples of it not working well include the jumps in Zi apparent in Fig. 5a where the algorithm couples to the elevated layers aloft. This is not to say the approach isn’t useful, it just adds another approach that suffers from many of the problems we always encounter in defining Zi.

The approach is not all that well “validated” or “calibrated”. Most of what you present are fairly loose comparisons with other imperfect observations (e.g., radiosondes, Rb, etc). This lack of rigor is somewhat unavoidable, but undermines the efficacy of the paper as a demonstration of technique in that the results are far from universal.

The paper is long and somewhat sprawling trying to accomplish two things at once (a) a technique demonstration and (b) a process-focused study. It leaves me wondering if splitting it into a technique paper and a process paper would be best. I’ll defer to the authors and input from other reviewers on this, as I understand the motivation to merge the two. I ran a quick word count on this, and I think (could be wrong) that you’re well over 10,000 words (probably 11-12,000). Many Journals try to keep word limits to ~7500. In reading the text I estimate you could probably remove up to ¼ of the total words and significantly improve the readability and conciseness of your manuscript.

Overall evaluation: I’d recommend minor revisions with a focus on addressing specific points enumerated below and an overall shortening/tightening of the manuscript where possible, or splitting into two if deemed appropriate.

Specific Comments:

Can you please specify what the units of the spectrum width are? I was assuming this was the Doppler spectrum width, thus representing the ranger of Doppler velocities sampled inside a lidar volume (pencil beam). It looks like your units are a.u.? I apologize for my ignorance, but I’m not familiar with what the a.u. unit is with respect to measured spectrum width. I’d have thought the units would be m/s?

Lines 173-180: I don’t understand why shear effects are separate from the true or measured value? How are they separable here?

Line 183: A fundamental question: if the spectrum width is related the range of observed Doppler velocities in a sample time/volume then are there expected to be differences as a function of elevation angle in an RHI for non-isotropic turbulence? In other words if the flow is a convective CBL with positively skewed vertical velocity you probably get a rather different spectrum width for the near horizontal vs near vertical parts of the RHI. Has this been explored? Is it an important consideration in merging the RHI scans?

Section 2.4: I would recommend changing the title of this subsection to something more like “comparing spectrum width and vertical velocity”. I was expecting some sort of statistical validation, whereas you provide a qualitative comparison (which is certainly still useful and worthwhile).

Line 233: I don’t understand the meaning of “1 hour intervals shifted forward by 10 minutes can you clarify”? Does this mean you take hour long averages every 10 minutes?

Line 235: What is a.u.? Here and elsewhere.

Line 242: errant apostrophe?

Line 266: This threshold (1100 m) gives me pause. I fully appreciate that these definitions always require range checks and thresholds but 1100 m seems well within the range of potential CBL depths in the MoBL… this approach discards any possibly deeper CBLs and preclude the application of the technique across a broader data set or other locations. I think you’re safe here in that your results are reproducible for this particular study, but it will undermines broadness of the use of this technique.

4. These data look promising, but it would be interesting to know how much better or worse the RMSE values were for other combinations? For example was the 12 point theta average not wildly different, or pretty similar? What about 3 points?

5a. In panel a, your CBL height ID on the left edge (~-2200 m) jumps up to the elevated spectrum width layers. Is this physical or not? Likewise at 2100 m (to the right) the blue dots jump to the elevated feature despite passing through a minima is spectrum width above the shallower near surface high SW layer. How do you interpret this result? I’m aware how tricky these threshold approaches are, and am supportive of the overall approach, it just seems there are some difficulties in its universal application (as with other approaches, the problem is not unique to you).

Line 316: I’m not sure that a “mature CBL” is a defined concept, and if it were I probably wouldn’t associate it with being decoupled, but rather strongly coupled. Consider rewording or specifying what you mean by mature?

Line 318: what allows you to characterize this elevated turbulence as convectively driven. Its decoupled nature would seem to suggest it has a non-surface based origin. Is it possibly mechanically generated? How do you know?

Line 325: These seem like very broad features to be convectively driven (1.5 km in width). Are they perhaps wave driven? Or waves coupled to the CBL top?

Line 333-334: But the cross section doesn’t show any coupling to the surface, so it is either not representative of the valley as a whole, or these are a not coupled to the surface? I’m a bit confused here.

8. We can again see some of the issues with the bottom-up threshold approach where your algorithm seems to jump to elevated layers (e.g., Fig. 8b at ~1600-1700 UTC), or wherein there are strong elevated sources of spectrum width not driven by CBL processes (e.g. strong winds aloft). This also gets at the issue of the 1100 m height threshold imposed… there seems to be coupling processes at play that *could* produce deeper convectively (or shear and convective) boundary layer depths).

Line 468: This is a really interesting persistent thermal plume feature. Really underscore how nice the merged RHI data are for examining the MoBL.

9. This figure is fantastic and provides all sorts of interesting details about the structure of the MoBL, including both terrain following and non-terrain following components of the MoBL structure, cross valley asymmetries (e.g., Fig. 9d).

Line 497: I’m a bit confused by the surface following high spectrum width feature and your description. First, just to be clear, is this evidence of a near surface up or down valley flow? Second, this feature is so strongly terrain following I’m almost confused by it. What does a radiosonde wind profile look like at this time? Does it show a low-level jet feature near the surface?

Lines 540-546: Seems odd to start a conclusions with a bunch of caveats. I’d recommend revising this section and focusing on what you have established. The rest of the paper addresses the nuances.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1977', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Oct 2023
Overview
This manuscript introduces a novel method to retrieve the convective boundary layer (CBL) height from coplanar Lidar scans. The scan data is availbale from the CROSSINN campaign, which took place in an Alpine Valley to study, among other mountain boundary layer (MoBL) phenomena, the cross-valley wind circulation. The new method to determine the CBL height is described over around 8 pages of the manuscript (excluding Figures) and gives a detailed overview of the necessary assumptions to extract the CBL height information from the measurements, which can be considered as a first part. In the second part (Section 3 onwards), the authors describe the varibility over space and time of selected ABL variables influencing the CBL height. Finally, they identify distinct regimes of MoBL (spatial) evolution determined from four selected intensive observation periods (IOPs). This work substantially contributes to the rich body of boundary-layer research in the Inn Valley and highlights the complexity of mountain boundary layers (again). Unfortunately, the manuscript reads more like a measurement report than a paper manuscript, because the authors leave many questions open, while they could have answered them by extracting more information from the CROSSINN and i-Box datasets.
Major comments
The authors try to bridge the gap between introducing a new method to determine the CBL height by analyzing the measurement data to gain new knowledge on the boundary-layer evolution in the Inn Valley, Austria. Since the explanation of the method is complex, this already takes almost half of the entire manuscript, which is very long, as a previous referee already pointed out. The extensive description of a measurement setup is likely out of scope for Weather and Climate Dynamics: The detailed description and proof of concept likely fit better in other Copernicus journals as Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (GI) or Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT). At AMT, there is even a well-fitting special issue open right now: "Profiling the atmospheric boundary layer at a European scale" (https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1209.html). Please consider a split of the manuscript, and then you can focus in the current WCD manuscript almost solely on the boundary-layer dynamics part. Henceforth, the major part of my review will focus on the interpretation and results from Section 3 and onwards.

The second part is written in an almost chaotic way. The authors assume that the reader already knows a lot about (i) the Inn Valley and surroundings, (ii) the local boundary layer development, and (iii) read all the previous publications of the CROSSINN campaign (e.g., different IOPs are mentioned, but there is no description on which processes were actually at play or that actually happened in the IOPs). This makes it difficulat to understand the relevant phenomena at play.

Furthermore, the authors leave a lot of questions open. On the one hand, they could answer them easily instead of speculating (e.g., using observations of radiosondes or the eddy covariance towers, or aircraft data), and on the other hand, they could extend their comparison to more IOPs (e.g., in Section 3.4) or add a fifth IOP with less synoptic influence (e.g., IOP10). If the authors choose to split their manuscript, this can be easily achieved.

Comparison with other work and lack of discussion - the comparison with real-case and idealized simulations is of course valid, especially when there is a lack of previous observations. However, I wonder why the authors complexely omit a comparison with other measurement campaigns, e.g., Hymex (Adler and Kalthoff, 2014, 2016); MAP-Rivera (Rotach et al, 2007, and their previous papers on the topic), T-REX observations and simulations (Strauss et al, 2015; Babic et al, 2019), and PIANO on foehn flows (Haid et al, 2020, 2021) to put their results into context.

To make the manuscript fit within the scope of WCD, the following possible questions could be answered:
Is there such a thing as an "ideal CBL development" in complex terrain?

(already partly answered) Which processes lead to a non-ideal CBL development? Typical MoBL processes due to the underlying terrain such as up-valley winds, slope flows, and the plain-to-mountain circulation, or other, larger scale influence (e.g., chanelling, foehn flows)?

Does the new CBL height determination method help us to untangle this complex flow structure, or does it raise new open questions? Is a regime classification with schematic diagrams possible, as in, e.g., Haid et al (2022)?

Why does a diagnostic of the CBL height give insight on the general dynamics in the Inn Valley? Unfortunately, the diagnostic only seems to work before noon, when buoyancy is the dominant production process for TKE production.

What is the essential take-away when we can finally diagnose the CBL height not only in the vertical, but also in space?

Minor comments
line 29: The substantial importance of horizontal shear was also shown by Goger et al (2018).

line 24: "will lead" [...] "leading" please reformulate

lines 30-48: This paragraph can easily be shortened towards "MoBLs are complex due to their multi-scale flow strucutre"

lines 65-76: I am not sure whether the introduction needs this lengthy description on the disadvantages on ceilometers

Section 3 (or even before): Add a brief summary of the IOPs you are using for this manuscript (parhaps with an overview table of the most relevant information). I know that the IOPs are described extensively in previous publications, but a summary is necessary for the interested reader here to udnestand the rest of the manuscript.

Here would be the opportunity to briefly discuss the differences between the single IOPs. If they are all similar, describe a typical diurnal cycle in the Inn valley (perhaps with a concept graph?) to prepare the reader on what to expect in the next chapters.

line 345: Which IOPs experience which large-scale forcings? Please elaborate.

line 355: "the prevalence of downvalley flows at night": Looking at Fig. 7b, only IOP2b shows persistent down-valley flows during the night. Up-valley flows during the night are not typical for days, when the diurnal valley wind circulation dominates in the Inn Valley (e.g, Goger et al 2018, Lehner et al, 2019).

Follow-up, what are the reasons that there are no down-valley flows in all the other (chosen) IOPs?

line 357: "synoptic foehn influence": This is the first occasion in the manuscript where you mention foehn winds at all. Please describe them and their potential impact on the Inn vally boundary layer at an earlier opportunity (e.g., beginning of section 3 where you could outline the diurnal cycle in the valley and potential synoptic influcenes). Furthermore, Plavcan's foehn diagnostic applies to the city of Innsbruck, 30km west of the I-Box area. How can you make sure that this diagnostic can be also apllied to the I-Box station? Did you check, e.g., the upstream slope stations Weerberg and Hochhaeuser?

line 365: Previous studies from the Rivera Valley (Weigel and Rotach, 2004) suggest that sensible heat fluxes (H) from slopes might have a larger impact on the valley boundary layer structure than H from the valley floor. Why do the authors only elaborate on the valley floor H, while there are observations from the other i-Box stations (e.g., Terfens, Eggen, Hochhäuser)?

line 367: Early turn of sensible heat fluxes: Can this turn of sensible heat fluxes also be connected to advection processes by the valley winds, a similar processes as negative SH fluxes during strong foehn flow (Umek et al (2021), their Figure 4)? How do you argue the influence of local vegetation when this turn of H was already observed 35 years ago at a different location in the Inn Valley (Vergeiner and Dreiseitl (1987), their Figure 8) or from the Rivera Valley (Rotach et al, 2008, their Figure 5)?

line 375: "assuming H is the sole driver of the CBL": How sure can we be of that assumption in complex topography? On the one hand, the authors wrote a very lengthy introduiction about the complexity of mountain boundary layers, but in the end they use a column approach with H from a single station, although there are more observations available.

line 400: Subsidence values are compared to idealized simulations - are there no observations from other campaigns available? What about MAP-Rivera (e.g., Weigel et al, 2006)?

line 407: The influence of the up-valley wind leads to a stabilization of the Inn Valley boundary layer, visible in previous simulation studies and the CROSSINN radiosonde observations. The term "well-mixed" might not be a fitting choice here.

line 412: "foehn-driven turbulence": What do you mean with this term? Considering the TKE budget equation, TKE can be generated by buoyancy and/or shear. You can check in the i-Box stations, whether the TKE measurements are similar between your convective and foehn days, and can also calculate bouyancy production and the vertical shear to check on the source of turbulence (at least at Kolsass and Terfens). Furthermore, could you determine TKE (and budget) values from your aircraft observations?

line 415: "horizontal convergence of upslope flow branches detaching from the slopes": This is true, but slope flows are likely eroded by the up-valley wind after 12 UTC (Rotach et al, 2008, Goger et al, 2018, their Figs 5 and 7). Furthermore, how sure are you on the development of slope flows in this non-ideal boundary layer in the valley with foehn influence?

line 418: Instead of speculating, you could check your radiosonde measurements whether they give any information on the mountain-to-plain wind circulation, e.g. by a shift in wind direction above crest height?

line 435: Now IOP3 is also under a strong foehn influence - Please write in the beginning of Sect. 3, which IOPs have considerate synoptic forcing. Then, the question could be raised, why the authors chose these IOPs for CBL height determination. For example, CROSSINN IOP10, has way less disturbance from synoptic flows.

line 441: "Increase in specturm width": Just curious, how is this an indicator for turbulence?

line 474: "up to 200 m deeper above the plateau than over the southern sidewall", Why? Is this due to differential heating? Is H at the South-facing sidewalls larger than at the North-facing slopes?

line 485: "plateau-locked upslope flows": What do you mean and where do you see this?

line 492: "low-level upvalley flow jet" ... you mean the jet of the up-valley flow? You can determine the jet maximum from your radiosonde observations?

line 509: "We will focus only on IOP 2a." Why? It would be an excellent improvement for the manuscript if you would show all four IOPs and then discuss the differences again. This would also highlight the different regimes observed.

lines 535-539: This was already done by Weigel and Rotach (2004). It would be a valueable insight whether this method of applying a different H also works for the Inn Valley.

line 532: "given the CVV influence": Is this really just the CVV - or just the up-valley flow?

Figures
All figures: The front size in the figures varies a lot. Please be consistent.

Figure 1: You could add somewhere in a small box the general location in the Alps (or Europe).

Figure 2 (and all future cross-sections in that style): Add South (S) and North (N) on the sides of your figure so that orientation is easier.

Figure 3: Maybe I've missed it, but what unit is a.u.?

Figure 4: Please add the day of your IOPs, otherwise the reader can not follow your seasonality argument.

Fig 7d: What's going on with z_i from IOP2a? Please adjust the range of your figure.

Fig8: Where do you describe the CBL evolution of Fig8c,d? Is this not worth mentioning?

References
Adler, B. & Kalthoff, N. Multi-scale Transport Processes Observed in the Boundary Layer over a Mountainous Island, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2014, 153, 515-537

Adler, B. & Kalthoff, N. The Impact of Upstream Flow on the Atmospheric Boundary Layer in a Valley on a Mountainous Island, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2016, 158, 429-452

Babić, N. & De Wekker, S. F. Characteristics of roll and cellular convection in a deep and wide semiarid valley: A large-eddy simulation study, Atmos. Res., 2019, 223, 74 - 87

Goger, B.; Rotach, M. W.; Gohm, A.; Fuhrer, O.; Stiperski, I. & Holtslag, A. A. M.: The Impact of Three-Dimensional Effects on the Simulation of Turbulence Kinetic Energy in a Major Alpine Valley, Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 2018, 168, 1-27

Haid, M.; Gohm, A.; Umek, L.; Ward, H. C.; Muschinski, T.; Lehner, L. & Rotach, M. W.: Foehn-cold pool interactions in the Inn Valley during PIANO IOP2 Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2020, 146, 1232-1263

Haid, M.; Gohm, A.; Umek, L.; Ward, H. C.; Muschinski, T.; Lehner, L. & Rotach, M. W.

Foehn-cold pool interactions in the Inn Valley during PIANO IOP2, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2020, 146, 1232-1263

Lehner, M.; Rotach, M. W. & Obleitner, F.: A Method to Identify Synoptically Undisturbed, Clear-Sky Conditions for Valley-Wind Analysis, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2019, 173, 435–450

Rotach, M. W. & Zardi, D.: On the boundary-layer structure over highly complex terrain: Key findings from MAP, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2007, 937-948

Rotach, M. W.; Andretta, M.; Calanca, P.; Weigel, A. & Weiss, A.: Boundary layer characteristics and turbulent exchange mechanisms in highly complex terrain, Acta Geophys., 2008, 56, 194-219

Strauss, L.; Serafin, S.; Haimov, S. & Grubišić, V.: Turbulence in breaking mountain waves and atmospheric rotors estimated from airborne in situ and Doppler radar measurements, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2015, 141, 3207-3225

Umek, L.; Gohm, A.; Haid, M.; Ward, H. C. & Rotach, M. W.: Large eddy simulation of foehn-cold pool interactions in the Inn Valley during PIANO IOP2, Q. J. R. Meteor. Soc., 2021, 147, 944-982

Vergeiner, I. & Dreiseitl, E.: Valley winds and slope winds --- Observations and elementary thoughts. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 1987, 36, 264-286

Weigel, A. P. & Rotach, M. W.: Flow structure and turbulence characteristics of the daytime atmosphere in a steep and narrow Alpine valley, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2004, 130, 2605-2627

Weigel, A. P.; Chow, F. K. & Rotach, M. W.: The effect of mountainous topography on moisture exchange between the “surface” and the free atmosphere, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2006, 125, 227-244
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977-RC2
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1977', Nevio Babic, 17 Dec 2023

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions for improving the manuscript. Please see the attached file with our responses to individual comments raised by both reviewers.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977-AC1

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1977', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Oct 2023
Summary: This study uses co-planar Doppler lidar observations in an across-valley transect during the CROSSINN campaign to (a) present a new approach for estimating the boundary layer depth and (b) applies these lidar observations along with other contextualizing field observations to describe variations in the MoBL structure and evolution. The new boundary layer depth approach relies on merged co-planar observations of the Doppler spectrum width, which is useful for evaluating CBL turbulence irrespective of the scan angle and thus overcomes limitation with other velocity based approaches that work for single column lidar observation but not RHIs. The analysis of the MoBL evolution reveals a mix of expected and unexpected features including terrain following CBLs, persistent thermalling features, and lowering Foehn flows, to name a few.

Overall comments:
The paper contains a number of useful and fascinating observations and techniques, but also suffers from a mix of focus on (a) a new technique and (b) trying to decipher MoBL physical processes. Broadly speaking I find the following strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths:
The use of the merged spectrum width to infer spatial variability in turbulent mixing is a strong contribution to the field of mountain boundary layer observations and alone warrants publication of this work. This approach overcomes the limitation of either using (a) single vertical velocity variance profiles above a fixed site, or (b) requiring dual-Doppler retrievals of the vertical wind, which can not yield the same spatially continuous coverage of the valley atmosphere.

The paper clearly demonstrates that these merged spectrum width data reveal important spatially and temporally varying aspects of the MoBL that are not otherwise possible. The content of the individual figures is stimulating and informative, as is the analysis of them, which gets at many of the complexities of the MoBL as compared to its flat terrain counter part.

Weaknesses:
The bottom up thresholding approach clearly has limitations, many evidenced in the analyses presented and some discussed by the authors. This is especially true in the presence of elevated turbulence sources. At times the approach seems to work great (e.g., Fig. 9a-f, h) whereas at other critical times it does not (e.g., Fig. 9g). Other examples of it not working well include the jumps in Zi apparent in Fig. 5a where the algorithm couples to the elevated layers aloft. This is not to say the approach isn’t useful, it just adds another approach that suffers from many of the problems we always encounter in defining Zi.

The approach is not all that well “validated” or “calibrated”. Most of what you present are fairly loose comparisons with other imperfect observations (e.g., radiosondes, Rb, etc). This lack of rigor is somewhat unavoidable, but undermines the efficacy of the paper as a demonstration of technique in that the results are far from universal.

The paper is long and somewhat sprawling trying to accomplish two things at once (a) a technique demonstration and (b) a process-focused study. It leaves me wondering if splitting it into a technique paper and a process paper would be best. I’ll defer to the authors and input from other reviewers on this, as I understand the motivation to merge the two. I ran a quick word count on this, and I think (could be wrong) that you’re well over 10,000 words (probably 11-12,000). Many Journals try to keep word limits to ~7500. In reading the text I estimate you could probably remove up to ¼ of the total words and significantly improve the readability and conciseness of your manuscript.

Overall evaluation: I’d recommend minor revisions with a focus on addressing specific points enumerated below and an overall shortening/tightening of the manuscript where possible, or splitting into two if deemed appropriate.

Specific Comments:

Can you please specify what the units of the spectrum width are? I was assuming this was the Doppler spectrum width, thus representing the ranger of Doppler velocities sampled inside a lidar volume (pencil beam). It looks like your units are a.u.? I apologize for my ignorance, but I’m not familiar with what the a.u. unit is with respect to measured spectrum width. I’d have thought the units would be m/s?

Lines 173-180: I don’t understand why shear effects are separate from the true or measured value? How are they separable here?

Line 183: A fundamental question: if the spectrum width is related the range of observed Doppler velocities in a sample time/volume then are there expected to be differences as a function of elevation angle in an RHI for non-isotropic turbulence? In other words if the flow is a convective CBL with positively skewed vertical velocity you probably get a rather different spectrum width for the near horizontal vs near vertical parts of the RHI. Has this been explored? Is it an important consideration in merging the RHI scans?

Section 2.4: I would recommend changing the title of this subsection to something more like “comparing spectrum width and vertical velocity”. I was expecting some sort of statistical validation, whereas you provide a qualitative comparison (which is certainly still useful and worthwhile).

Line 233: I don’t understand the meaning of “1 hour intervals shifted forward by 10 minutes can you clarify”? Does this mean you take hour long averages every 10 minutes?

Line 235: What is a.u.? Here and elsewhere.

Line 242: errant apostrophe?

Line 266: This threshold (1100 m) gives me pause. I fully appreciate that these definitions always require range checks and thresholds but 1100 m seems well within the range of potential CBL depths in the MoBL… this approach discards any possibly deeper CBLs and preclude the application of the technique across a broader data set or other locations. I think you’re safe here in that your results are reproducible for this particular study, but it will undermines broadness of the use of this technique.

4. These data look promising, but it would be interesting to know how much better or worse the RMSE values were for other combinations? For example was the 12 point theta average not wildly different, or pretty similar? What about 3 points?

5a. In panel a, your CBL height ID on the left edge (~-2200 m) jumps up to the elevated spectrum width layers. Is this physical or not? Likewise at 2100 m (to the right) the blue dots jump to the elevated feature despite passing through a minima is spectrum width above the shallower near surface high SW layer. How do you interpret this result? I’m aware how tricky these threshold approaches are, and am supportive of the overall approach, it just seems there are some difficulties in its universal application (as with other approaches, the problem is not unique to you).

Line 316: I’m not sure that a “mature CBL” is a defined concept, and if it were I probably wouldn’t associate it with being decoupled, but rather strongly coupled. Consider rewording or specifying what you mean by mature?

Line 318: what allows you to characterize this elevated turbulence as convectively driven. Its decoupled nature would seem to suggest it has a non-surface based origin. Is it possibly mechanically generated? How do you know?

Line 325: These seem like very broad features to be convectively driven (1.5 km in width). Are they perhaps wave driven? Or waves coupled to the CBL top?

Line 333-334: But the cross section doesn’t show any coupling to the surface, so it is either not representative of the valley as a whole, or these are a not coupled to the surface? I’m a bit confused here.

8. We can again see some of the issues with the bottom-up threshold approach where your algorithm seems to jump to elevated layers (e.g., Fig. 8b at ~1600-1700 UTC), or wherein there are strong elevated sources of spectrum width not driven by CBL processes (e.g. strong winds aloft). This also gets at the issue of the 1100 m height threshold imposed… there seems to be coupling processes at play that *could* produce deeper convectively (or shear and convective) boundary layer depths).

Line 468: This is a really interesting persistent thermal plume feature. Really underscore how nice the merged RHI data are for examining the MoBL.

9. This figure is fantastic and provides all sorts of interesting details about the structure of the MoBL, including both terrain following and non-terrain following components of the MoBL structure, cross valley asymmetries (e.g., Fig. 9d).

Line 497: I’m a bit confused by the surface following high spectrum width feature and your description. First, just to be clear, is this evidence of a near surface up or down valley flow? Second, this feature is so strongly terrain following I’m almost confused by it. What does a radiosonde wind profile look like at this time? Does it show a low-level jet feature near the surface?

Lines 540-546: Seems odd to start a conclusions with a bunch of caveats. I’d recommend revising this section and focusing on what you have established. The rest of the paper addresses the nuances.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1977', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Oct 2023
Overview
This manuscript introduces a novel method to retrieve the convective boundary layer (CBL) height from coplanar Lidar scans. The scan data is availbale from the CROSSINN campaign, which took place in an Alpine Valley to study, among other mountain boundary layer (MoBL) phenomena, the cross-valley wind circulation. The new method to determine the CBL height is described over around 8 pages of the manuscript (excluding Figures) and gives a detailed overview of the necessary assumptions to extract the CBL height information from the measurements, which can be considered as a first part. In the second part (Section 3 onwards), the authors describe the varibility over space and time of selected ABL variables influencing the CBL height. Finally, they identify distinct regimes of MoBL (spatial) evolution determined from four selected intensive observation periods (IOPs). This work substantially contributes to the rich body of boundary-layer research in the Inn Valley and highlights the complexity of mountain boundary layers (again). Unfortunately, the manuscript reads more like a measurement report than a paper manuscript, because the authors leave many questions open, while they could have answered them by extracting more information from the CROSSINN and i-Box datasets.
Major comments
The authors try to bridge the gap between introducing a new method to determine the CBL height by analyzing the measurement data to gain new knowledge on the boundary-layer evolution in the Inn Valley, Austria. Since the explanation of the method is complex, this already takes almost half of the entire manuscript, which is very long, as a previous referee already pointed out. The extensive description of a measurement setup is likely out of scope for Weather and Climate Dynamics: The detailed description and proof of concept likely fit better in other Copernicus journals as Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (GI) or Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT). At AMT, there is even a well-fitting special issue open right now: "Profiling the atmospheric boundary layer at a European scale" (https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1209.html). Please consider a split of the manuscript, and then you can focus in the current WCD manuscript almost solely on the boundary-layer dynamics part. Henceforth, the major part of my review will focus on the interpretation and results from Section 3 and onwards.

The second part is written in an almost chaotic way. The authors assume that the reader already knows a lot about (i) the Inn Valley and surroundings, (ii) the local boundary layer development, and (iii) read all the previous publications of the CROSSINN campaign (e.g., different IOPs are mentioned, but there is no description on which processes were actually at play or that actually happened in the IOPs). This makes it difficulat to understand the relevant phenomena at play.

Furthermore, the authors leave a lot of questions open. On the one hand, they could answer them easily instead of speculating (e.g., using observations of radiosondes or the eddy covariance towers, or aircraft data), and on the other hand, they could extend their comparison to more IOPs (e.g., in Section 3.4) or add a fifth IOP with less synoptic influence (e.g., IOP10). If the authors choose to split their manuscript, this can be easily achieved.

Comparison with other work and lack of discussion - the comparison with real-case and idealized simulations is of course valid, especially when there is a lack of previous observations. However, I wonder why the authors complexely omit a comparison with other measurement campaigns, e.g., Hymex (Adler and Kalthoff, 2014, 2016); MAP-Rivera (Rotach et al, 2007, and their previous papers on the topic), T-REX observations and simulations (Strauss et al, 2015; Babic et al, 2019), and PIANO on foehn flows (Haid et al, 2020, 2021) to put their results into context.

To make the manuscript fit within the scope of WCD, the following possible questions could be answered:
Is there such a thing as an "ideal CBL development" in complex terrain?

(already partly answered) Which processes lead to a non-ideal CBL development? Typical MoBL processes due to the underlying terrain such as up-valley winds, slope flows, and the plain-to-mountain circulation, or other, larger scale influence (e.g., chanelling, foehn flows)?

Does the new CBL height determination method help us to untangle this complex flow structure, or does it raise new open questions? Is a regime classification with schematic diagrams possible, as in, e.g., Haid et al (2022)?

Why does a diagnostic of the CBL height give insight on the general dynamics in the Inn Valley? Unfortunately, the diagnostic only seems to work before noon, when buoyancy is the dominant production process for TKE production.

What is the essential take-away when we can finally diagnose the CBL height not only in the vertical, but also in space?

Minor comments
line 29: The substantial importance of horizontal shear was also shown by Goger et al (2018).

line 24: "will lead" [...] "leading" please reformulate

lines 30-48: This paragraph can easily be shortened towards "MoBLs are complex due to their multi-scale flow strucutre"

lines 65-76: I am not sure whether the introduction needs this lengthy description on the disadvantages on ceilometers

Section 3 (or even before): Add a brief summary of the IOPs you are using for this manuscript (parhaps with an overview table of the most relevant information). I know that the IOPs are described extensively in previous publications, but a summary is necessary for the interested reader here to udnestand the rest of the manuscript.

Here would be the opportunity to briefly discuss the differences between the single IOPs. If they are all similar, describe a typical diurnal cycle in the Inn valley (perhaps with a concept graph?) to prepare the reader on what to expect in the next chapters.

line 345: Which IOPs experience which large-scale forcings? Please elaborate.

line 355: "the prevalence of downvalley flows at night": Looking at Fig. 7b, only IOP2b shows persistent down-valley flows during the night. Up-valley flows during the night are not typical for days, when the diurnal valley wind circulation dominates in the Inn Valley (e.g, Goger et al 2018, Lehner et al, 2019).

Follow-up, what are the reasons that there are no down-valley flows in all the other (chosen) IOPs?

line 357: "synoptic foehn influence": This is the first occasion in the manuscript where you mention foehn winds at all. Please describe them and their potential impact on the Inn vally boundary layer at an earlier opportunity (e.g., beginning of section 3 where you could outline the diurnal cycle in the valley and potential synoptic influcenes). Furthermore, Plavcan's foehn diagnostic applies to the city of Innsbruck, 30km west of the I-Box area. How can you make sure that this diagnostic can be also apllied to the I-Box station? Did you check, e.g., the upstream slope stations Weerberg and Hochhaeuser?

line 365: Previous studies from the Rivera Valley (Weigel and Rotach, 2004) suggest that sensible heat fluxes (H) from slopes might have a larger impact on the valley boundary layer structure than H from the valley floor. Why do the authors only elaborate on the valley floor H, while there are observations from the other i-Box stations (e.g., Terfens, Eggen, Hochhäuser)?

line 367: Early turn of sensible heat fluxes: Can this turn of sensible heat fluxes also be connected to advection processes by the valley winds, a similar processes as negative SH fluxes during strong foehn flow (Umek et al (2021), their Figure 4)? How do you argue the influence of local vegetation when this turn of H was already observed 35 years ago at a different location in the Inn Valley (Vergeiner and Dreiseitl (1987), their Figure 8) or from the Rivera Valley (Rotach et al, 2008, their Figure 5)?

line 375: "assuming H is the sole driver of the CBL": How sure can we be of that assumption in complex topography? On the one hand, the authors wrote a very lengthy introduiction about the complexity of mountain boundary layers, but in the end they use a column approach with H from a single station, although there are more observations available.

line 400: Subsidence values are compared to idealized simulations - are there no observations from other campaigns available? What about MAP-Rivera (e.g., Weigel et al, 2006)?

line 407: The influence of the up-valley wind leads to a stabilization of the Inn Valley boundary layer, visible in previous simulation studies and the CROSSINN radiosonde observations. The term "well-mixed" might not be a fitting choice here.

line 412: "foehn-driven turbulence": What do you mean with this term? Considering the TKE budget equation, TKE can be generated by buoyancy and/or shear. You can check in the i-Box stations, whether the TKE measurements are similar between your convective and foehn days, and can also calculate bouyancy production and the vertical shear to check on the source of turbulence (at least at Kolsass and Terfens). Furthermore, could you determine TKE (and budget) values from your aircraft observations?

line 415: "horizontal convergence of upslope flow branches detaching from the slopes": This is true, but slope flows are likely eroded by the up-valley wind after 12 UTC (Rotach et al, 2008, Goger et al, 2018, their Figs 5 and 7). Furthermore, how sure are you on the development of slope flows in this non-ideal boundary layer in the valley with foehn influence?

line 418: Instead of speculating, you could check your radiosonde measurements whether they give any information on the mountain-to-plain wind circulation, e.g. by a shift in wind direction above crest height?

line 435: Now IOP3 is also under a strong foehn influence - Please write in the beginning of Sect. 3, which IOPs have considerate synoptic forcing. Then, the question could be raised, why the authors chose these IOPs for CBL height determination. For example, CROSSINN IOP10, has way less disturbance from synoptic flows.

line 441: "Increase in specturm width": Just curious, how is this an indicator for turbulence?

line 474: "up to 200 m deeper above the plateau than over the southern sidewall", Why? Is this due to differential heating? Is H at the South-facing sidewalls larger than at the North-facing slopes?

line 485: "plateau-locked upslope flows": What do you mean and where do you see this?

line 492: "low-level upvalley flow jet" ... you mean the jet of the up-valley flow? You can determine the jet maximum from your radiosonde observations?

line 509: "We will focus only on IOP 2a." Why? It would be an excellent improvement for the manuscript if you would show all four IOPs and then discuss the differences again. This would also highlight the different regimes observed.

lines 535-539: This was already done by Weigel and Rotach (2004). It would be a valueable insight whether this method of applying a different H also works for the Inn Valley.

line 532: "given the CVV influence": Is this really just the CVV - or just the up-valley flow?

Figures
All figures: The front size in the figures varies a lot. Please be consistent.

Figure 1: You could add somewhere in a small box the general location in the Alps (or Europe).

Figure 2 (and all future cross-sections in that style): Add South (S) and North (N) on the sides of your figure so that orientation is easier.

Figure 3: Maybe I've missed it, but what unit is a.u.?

Figure 4: Please add the day of your IOPs, otherwise the reader can not follow your seasonality argument.

Fig 7d: What's going on with z_i from IOP2a? Please adjust the range of your figure.

Fig8: Where do you describe the CBL evolution of Fig8c,d? Is this not worth mentioning?

References
Adler, B. & Kalthoff, N. Multi-scale Transport Processes Observed in the Boundary Layer over a Mountainous Island, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2014, 153, 515-537

Adler, B. & Kalthoff, N. The Impact of Upstream Flow on the Atmospheric Boundary Layer in a Valley on a Mountainous Island, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2016, 158, 429-452

Babić, N. & De Wekker, S. F. Characteristics of roll and cellular convection in a deep and wide semiarid valley: A large-eddy simulation study, Atmos. Res., 2019, 223, 74 - 87

Goger, B.; Rotach, M. W.; Gohm, A.; Fuhrer, O.; Stiperski, I. & Holtslag, A. A. M.: The Impact of Three-Dimensional Effects on the Simulation of Turbulence Kinetic Energy in a Major Alpine Valley, Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 2018, 168, 1-27

Haid, M.; Gohm, A.; Umek, L.; Ward, H. C.; Muschinski, T.; Lehner, L. & Rotach, M. W.: Foehn-cold pool interactions in the Inn Valley during PIANO IOP2 Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2020, 146, 1232-1263

Haid, M.; Gohm, A.; Umek, L.; Ward, H. C.; Muschinski, T.; Lehner, L. & Rotach, M. W.

Foehn-cold pool interactions in the Inn Valley during PIANO IOP2, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2020, 146, 1232-1263

Lehner, M.; Rotach, M. W. & Obleitner, F.: A Method to Identify Synoptically Undisturbed, Clear-Sky Conditions for Valley-Wind Analysis, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2019, 173, 435–450

Rotach, M. W. & Zardi, D.: On the boundary-layer structure over highly complex terrain: Key findings from MAP, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2007, 937-948

Rotach, M. W.; Andretta, M.; Calanca, P.; Weigel, A. & Weiss, A.: Boundary layer characteristics and turbulent exchange mechanisms in highly complex terrain, Acta Geophys., 2008, 56, 194-219

Strauss, L.; Serafin, S.; Haimov, S. & Grubišić, V.: Turbulence in breaking mountain waves and atmospheric rotors estimated from airborne in situ and Doppler radar measurements, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2015, 141, 3207-3225

Umek, L.; Gohm, A.; Haid, M.; Ward, H. C. & Rotach, M. W.: Large eddy simulation of foehn-cold pool interactions in the Inn Valley during PIANO IOP2, Q. J. R. Meteor. Soc., 2021, 147, 944-982

Vergeiner, I. & Dreiseitl, E.: Valley winds and slope winds --- Observations and elementary thoughts. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 1987, 36, 264-286

Weigel, A. P. & Rotach, M. W.: Flow structure and turbulence characteristics of the daytime atmosphere in a steep and narrow Alpine valley, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 2004, 130, 2605-2627

Weigel, A. P.; Chow, F. K. & Rotach, M. W.: The effect of mountainous topography on moisture exchange between the “surface” and the free atmosphere, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 2006, 125, 227-244
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977-RC2
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1977', Nevio Babic, 17 Dec 2023

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions for improving the manuscript. Please see the attached file with our responses to individual comments raised by both reviewers.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1977-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Nevio Babic on behalf of the Authors (17 Dec 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Dec 2023) by Juerg Schmidli

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (09 Jan 2024)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

rejected

Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:

I would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I thank the authors for their detailed answers to my questions and I appreciate the first author's dedication to the manuscript despite leaving academia.
However, the author's current professional situation should not alter the manuscript's quality, and furthermore, there are four more co-authors on the list who could also contribute to the improvement of the manuscript.

The revised manuscript was shortened (by moving most of the methods section into a supplement) and a new chapter on MoBL evolution the valley was added (this is much appreciated), but asides from these efforts, not much changed in the revised version, despite multiple questions and concerns by both referees. By this, I mean that many questions and concerns from me (and also from the other referee) were answered in a detailed way in the response to referees document (thank you!), but were not included in the manuscript. Since the authors already made the effort in answering and creating additional figures, why do they not include the answers in some way in the manuscript? Please be aware that referee's questions are always also potential questions raised by future readers of the manuscript.
I would really encourage the authors to include a concise discussion section to put their research into broader context, because right now, this study is still very localized and limited to a few hours (!) of few days (three, if counted correctly) within a small section of an Alpine valley (peak-to-peak distance of 10km). I would like to remind the authors on WCD's guidelines on submitting research articles (https://www.weather-climate-dynamics.net/about/manuscript_types.html):
"Research articles report substantial new results and conclusions from scientific investigations of dynamical processes in the atmosphere within the scope of the journal. Please note that the journal scope is focused on studies with general implications for atmospheric science rather than investigations which are primarily of local interest."
Therefore, I would still suggest a second round of major revisions to give the authors the chance to improve the manuscript and add important discussion points to the manuscript.

I can understand that not all of referee's remarks are equally useful, but I would like to mention examples from the response to reviewers document which would improve the manuscript:

*) page 6, R1's inquiry about the choice of the CBL threshold of 1100m. Would'nt it make sense to add the reasoning behind it in the manuscript discussion?
*) page 10, R1's question on the presence of a LLJ;
*) page 16, R2: Does the new CBL height determination method help us [...]? - The author's answer to this question would perfectly fit in a discussion section.
*) page 19, R2: Rivera Valley: Thank you for this detailed answer - the manuscript would benefit if you added this to the manuscript. I don't think that a direct quantitative comparison is necessary - a qualitative one is useful as well, especially these sentences: "However we argue that drawing conclusions based on just a few i-Box stations, regarding slope influences (similar to the Rivera Valley), though potentially valid, would be incomplete without more spatially-focused measurements (e.g. scintilometer-based H measurements) or numerical modelling with appropriately fine horizontal resolutions."
*) R2: "well-mixed" ABL: I am sorry to say this, but it is problematic to call a boundary layer with a negative heat flux "well-mixed", because it is usually associated with CBLs or forced convection. (AMS Glossary: "The terms mixed layer, convective mixed layer, and convective boundary layer commonly imply only the buoyantly stirred layer." https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mixed_layer). At 16UTC, buoyancy is likely negative in the Inn Valley (cf. Goger et al, 2018, their Figs 5 and 7). I would strongly suggest either "turbulent layer" or "shear-driven".
*) page 24, line 509: Thank you for these interesting figures! I have to disagree with the authors, I think adding all the IOPs would benefit the manuscript - especially because it shows that the three IOPs exhibit similar conditions, which might allow for some more general conclusions? I would like to remind the authors that the extreme localization and restriction a few days is still a weakness of the manuscript.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (25 Jan 2024) by Juerg Schmidli

AR by Nevio Babic on behalf of the Authors (20 Feb 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Feb 2024) by Juerg Schmidli

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (28 Feb 2024)

ED: Publish as is (29 Feb 2024) by Juerg Schmidli

AR by Nevio Babic on behalf of the Authors (07 Mar 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

25 Apr 2024

Exploring the daytime boundary layer evolution based on Doppler spectrum width from multiple coplanar wind lidars during CROSSINN

Nevio Babić, Bianca Adler, Alexander Gohm, Manuela Lehner, and Norbert Kalthoff

Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 609–631, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-609-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-609-2024, 2024

Short summary

Nevio Babić, Bianca Adler, Alexander Gohm, Manuela Lehner, and Norbert Kalthoff

Viewed

Total article views: 432 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
291	118	23	432	13	17

HTML: 291
PDF: 118
XML: 23
Total: 432
BibTeX: 13
EndNote: 17

Views and downloads (calculated since 08 Sep 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2023	85	27	4	116
Oct 2023	58	22	5	85
Nov 2023	25	10	1	36
Dec 2023	22	16	3	41
Jan 2024	29	10	2	41
Feb 2024	16	7	3	26
Mar 2024	37	16	3	56
Apr 2024	19	10	2	31
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 08 Sep 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2023	85	27	4	116
Oct 2023	58	22	5	85
Nov 2023	25	10	1	36
Dec 2023	22	16	3	41
Jan 2024	29	10	2	41
Feb 2024	16	7	3	26
Mar 2024	37	16	3	56
Apr 2024	19	10	2	31
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 442 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 442 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 18 Sep 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3136 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Day-to-day weather over mountains remains a significant challenge in the domain of weather forecast. Using a combination of measurements from several instrument platforms, including Doppler lidars, aircraft, and radiosondes, we developed a method that relies primarily on turbulence characteristics of the lowest layers of the atmosphere. As a result, we identified new ways in which atmosphere behaves over mountains during daytime, which may serve to further improve forecasting capabilities.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0