the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deep-Learning-derived Planetary Boundary Layer Height from Conventional Meteorological Measurements
Abstract. The planetary boundary layer (PBL) height (PBLH) is an important parameter for various meteorological and climate studies. This study presents a multi-structure deep neural network (DNN) model, designed to estimate PBLH by integrating morning temperature profiles with surface meteorological observations. The DNN model is developed by leveraging a rich dataset of PBLH derived from long-standing radiosonde records and augmented with high-resolution micro-pulse lidar and Doppler lidar observations. We access the performance of the DNN with an ensemble of ten members, each featuring distinct hidden layer structures, which collectively yield a robust 27-year PBLH dataset over the Southern Great Plains from 1994 to 2020. The influence of various meteorological factors on PBLH is rigorously analyzed through the importance test. Moreover, the DNN model's accuracy is evaluated against radiosonde observations and juxtaposed with conventional remote sensing methodologies, including Doppler lidar, ceilometer, Raman lidar, and Micro-pulse lidar. The DNN model exhibits reliable performance across diverse conditions and demonstrates lower biases relative to remote sensing methods. In addition, the DNN model, originally trained over a plain region, demonstrates remarkable adaptability when applied to the heterogeneous terrains and climates encountered during the GoAmazon (Tropical Rainforest) and CACTI (Middle Latitude Mountain) campaigns. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of deep learning models in estimating PBLH, enhancing our understanding of boundary layer dynamics with implications for enhancing the representation of PBL in weather forecasting and climate modeling.
-
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
(8846 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8846 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-376', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Mar 2024
Review of the article titled “Deep-Learning-derived Planetary Boundary Layer Height from Conventional Meteorological Measurements” by Tianning Su and Yunyan Zhang for publication in atmospheric chemistry and physics.
The authors have used 27 years of data collected by variety of instruments at the ARM SGP site to determine PBL height using machine learning. The method uses the PBL height derived by radiosondes, ceilometer, doppler lidar etc. at variety of temporal resolution to derive PBL height as hourly resolution. The results compare well with the evaluation data. The method is then applied to data collected during two field campaigns, CACTI and GoAmazon showcasing reasonable results. The authors argue that this demonstrates the utility of the deep learning models in predicting PBL height (Line 39). The article is well-written, and a lot of work has gone into it. However, I find some flaws with it and encourage the authors to revise it as it will make it better.
Major Comments
It is unclear to me whether the article is about highlighting the uniqueness of deep learning model or it is about implementing the model to derive PBL height for atmospheric science. From the abstract and discussion, it seems that it is an article demonstrating the uniqueness of machine learning model, which is fine but might make it unsuitable for ACP. If it is for doing science from the derived high resolution PBL height values, then maybe some more analysis should be included in the paper.
Table 3: The table lists feature importance of the input variables. Thereby it should highlight the variables that are most important for predicting the PBL height. The values are very small, and it is unclear why they don’t add up to one. I highly encourage the authors to normalize the values before presenting them in the table. Please see the paper below for more information. Something like their Figure 7 would be great.
Gagne II, D. J., S. E. Haupt, D. W. Nychka, and G. Thompson, 2019: Interpretable Deep Learning for Spatial Analysis of Severe Hailstorms. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 2827–2845.
The second author Dr. Zhang has done a lot of work on the SGP site, especially on shallow cumulus clouds and their controls pertaining to land-atmosphere interactions. It will be great if the authors can use either the shallow cumulus case library made by Dr. Zhang, or the shallow cumulus cases simulated by LASSO activity to probe how the new DNN derived PBL heights compare with cloud boundaries. As of now it is hard to tell whether the DNN derived PBL heights are physically consistent.
Line 240: you have used the lidar derived PBL height when the radiosonde data are not available, with a caveat that they agree within 200m. Can you please tell us how many of them did not agree within the 200m threshold and what was done for those periods? Thanks.
Minor Comments
Line 117: add height above mean sea level.
Line 119-120: Add references to the field campaigns.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-376-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-376/egusphere-2024-376-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-376', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Mar 2024
Please see attached for the detailed review.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-376/egusphere-2024-376-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-376', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Mar 2024
Review of the article titled “Deep-Learning-derived Planetary Boundary Layer Height from Conventional Meteorological Measurements” by Tianning Su and Yunyan Zhang for publication in atmospheric chemistry and physics.
The authors have used 27 years of data collected by variety of instruments at the ARM SGP site to determine PBL height using machine learning. The method uses the PBL height derived by radiosondes, ceilometer, doppler lidar etc. at variety of temporal resolution to derive PBL height as hourly resolution. The results compare well with the evaluation data. The method is then applied to data collected during two field campaigns, CACTI and GoAmazon showcasing reasonable results. The authors argue that this demonstrates the utility of the deep learning models in predicting PBL height (Line 39). The article is well-written, and a lot of work has gone into it. However, I find some flaws with it and encourage the authors to revise it as it will make it better.
Major Comments
It is unclear to me whether the article is about highlighting the uniqueness of deep learning model or it is about implementing the model to derive PBL height for atmospheric science. From the abstract and discussion, it seems that it is an article demonstrating the uniqueness of machine learning model, which is fine but might make it unsuitable for ACP. If it is for doing science from the derived high resolution PBL height values, then maybe some more analysis should be included in the paper.
Table 3: The table lists feature importance of the input variables. Thereby it should highlight the variables that are most important for predicting the PBL height. The values are very small, and it is unclear why they don’t add up to one. I highly encourage the authors to normalize the values before presenting them in the table. Please see the paper below for more information. Something like their Figure 7 would be great.
Gagne II, D. J., S. E. Haupt, D. W. Nychka, and G. Thompson, 2019: Interpretable Deep Learning for Spatial Analysis of Severe Hailstorms. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 2827–2845.
The second author Dr. Zhang has done a lot of work on the SGP site, especially on shallow cumulus clouds and their controls pertaining to land-atmosphere interactions. It will be great if the authors can use either the shallow cumulus case library made by Dr. Zhang, or the shallow cumulus cases simulated by LASSO activity to probe how the new DNN derived PBL heights compare with cloud boundaries. As of now it is hard to tell whether the DNN derived PBL heights are physically consistent.
Line 240: you have used the lidar derived PBL height when the radiosonde data are not available, with a caveat that they agree within 200m. Can you please tell us how many of them did not agree within the 200m threshold and what was done for those periods? Thanks.
Minor Comments
Line 117: add height above mean sea level.
Line 119-120: Add references to the field campaigns.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-376-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-376/egusphere-2024-376-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-376', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Mar 2024
Please see attached for the detailed review.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-376/egusphere-2024-376-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tianning Su, 15 Apr 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
444 | 220 | 24 | 688 | 11 | 10 |
- HTML: 444
- PDF: 220
- XML: 24
- Total: 688
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Yunyan Zhang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8846 KB) - Metadata XML