the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Use of commercial microwave links as scintillometers: potential and limitations towards evaporation estimation
Abstract. Scintillometers are used to measure path-integrated evaporation and sensible heat fluxes. They consist of a transmitter and a receiver separated along a line of sight of several hundreds of meters to a few kilometers. Turbulent eddies and the associated refractive index fluctuations along the path between transmitter and receiver cause diffraction of the transmitted beam, known as the scintillation effect. Optical and microwave scintillometers have been designed to measure the full spectral range of the signal intensity fluctuations caused by this phenomenon and quantitatively link these fluctuations to turbulent sensible- and latent heat fluxes. Commercial Microwave Links (CMLs), such as used in cellular telecommunication networks, are also line-of-sight instruments that measure signal intensity of microwave signals. However, CMLs are not designed to capture scintillation fluctuations. Here, we investigate if and under what conditions CMLs can be used to obtain the structure parameter of the refractive index, Cnn, which would be a first step in computing turbulent heat fluxes with CMLs using scintillation theory. We use data from three collocated microwave links installed over a 856 m path at the Ruisdael Observatory near Cabauw, the Netherlands. Two of these links are 38 GHz CMLs formerly employed in telecom networks in the Netherlands, a Nokia Flexihopper and an Ericsson MiniLink. We compare Cnn estimates obtained from the received signal intensity of these links, sampled at 20 Hz, with those obtained from measurements of a 160 GHz microwave scintillometer (RPG-MWSC) sampled at 1 kHz and of an eddy-covariance system. After comparison of the unprocessed Cnn, we rejected the Ericsson MiniLink, because its 0.5 dB power quantization (i.e., the discretization of the signal intensity) was found to be too coarse to be applied as a scintillometer. Based on power spectra of the Nokia Flexihopper and the microwave scintillometer, we propose two methods to correct for the white noise present in the signal of the Nokia Flexihopper: 1) we apply a high-pass filter and subtract the noise based on a comparison with the microwave scintillometer, and building on that 2) we select parts of the power spectra where the Nokia Flexihopper behaves in correspondence with scintillation theory, also considering different crosswind conditions, and correct for the underrepresented part of the scintillation spectrum based on theoretical scintillation spectra. The comparison and noise determination with the microwave scintillometer is provides the best possible Cnn estimates for the Nokia Flexihopper, although this is not feasible in operational settings for CMLs. Both of our proposed methods show an improvement of Cnn estimates in comparison to uncorrected estimates, albeit with a larger uncertainty than the reference instruments. Our study illustrates the potential of using CMLs as scintillometers, but also outlines some major drawbacks, most of which are related to unfavourable design choices made for CMLs. If these would be overcome, given their global coverage, the potential of CMLs for large scale evaporation monitoring would be unprecedented.
- Preprint
(15657 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(466 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2974', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jan 2025
The paper focus on the potential use of commercial microwave links as scintillometers. In a first part, authors recall the basics of scintillometry, analyse and compare the scintillation signal and the deduced structure parameters from commercial microwave link with those from research reference instruments (Microwave scintillometer and Eddy Covariance data). For this first part a detailed control has to be done on text and formulas. They are both sometimes associated with small or large aperture hypothesis without specification of one or the other. Small aperture formulas are expected for Microwave links. This is confusing as the theoretical part doesn't match with the presented data. The reference cited could be more appropriate, using the original references rather than an handbook not completely dedicated to the scintillometry theory. This part ends with a clear result that should be relevant for publication showing the limitations of the CML devices to measure Cnn.
The second part is less convincing as it is not clear at the end if the signal from the commercial link contains useful scintillation information or if the results are just a degradation of the signal from the MWS microwave research device, as the correction methods include the observed scintillation behavior from the MWS data.
In method 1 S_noise seems to includes the power -8/3 decaying part which evolves along the day with the turbulence activity and cross wind intensity. For method 2 said to be built on method 1 it is also not clear what part of the MWS signal is included in the corrected CML data. It seems this method can be considered as a spectral modeling method using a transfer function based on theoretical spectra functions for different crosswind values, but it is not clear if the noise reduction of the first methods has been applied or not.The overall description of both methods, even though it is "basic" methods, is not clear enough to help the reader understanding what is the quantity of the MWS signal is included in the correction (see detailed comments on the pdf). It is even not clear on which dataset the noise is caracterized, if an average noise (pre frequency bin) is removed for any half hour or if the noise is characterized for any half hour, and then not clear how the noise is removed in the 0.1 - 1 Hz frequency range using the 1Hz - 10Hz caracterisation.
Separating the data set in two, with a calibration segment and an evaluation segment could make the study more convincing.
For both methods the impact of filtering and correcting should be better analysed. The reader has just some "hypothetical" plots which makes difficult the appreciation of the methods performances. For example, the noise removing procedure and sig2_noise estimation could be applied to the no-scintillation dataset (turned off transmitting antenna).A better characterization of the noise accross frequencies for different conditions, especially with T°, windspeed, should help to consolidate method 1.
For model 2, the identified cutoff frequencies have an unexpected non monotonous dependency with the crosswind values. This is not discussed. From spectra modeling, this behavior means that there is other dependencies in the dataset. More over, it is not compatible with the applied high pass filter.
The structure of the paper should be reorganised, putting together all the methodology parts, including correction methods.
From this remarks the overall feeling is that no general procedure could be applied to the CML dataset, without a continuous MWS beside. I suggest the authors should re-organise the paper and their argumentation with the only objective to demonstrate that useful scintillation informations are included in the CML data, which I believe looking at the only spectrum presented. Then eventually demonstrate for which conditions scintillation informations are extractable from the raw data or not.
Because important presented results deserve to be published, but thinking that methodology should be hardly consolidated, I suggest major revision for this paper.Extra detailed comments are included in the attached pdf.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Luuk van der Valk, 05 Mar 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2974', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jan 2025
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Luuk van der Valk, 05 Mar 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
186 | 37 | 9 | 232 | 21 | 7 | 9 |
- HTML: 186
- PDF: 37
- XML: 9
- Total: 232
- Supplement: 21
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 73 | 31 |
Netherlands | 2 | 45 | 19 |
Germany | 3 | 33 | 14 |
China | 4 | 22 | 9 |
France | 5 | 13 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 73