the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Best Estimate of the Planetary Boundary Layer Height from Multiple Remote Sensing Measurements
Abstract. Remote sensing measurements have been widely used to estimate the planetary boundary layer height (PBLHT). Each remote sensing approach offers unique strengths and faces different limitations. In this study, we use machine learning (ML) methods to produce a best-estimate PBLHT (PBLHT-BE-ML) by integrating four PBLHT estimates derived from remote sensing measurements at the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains (SGP) observatory. Three ML models—Random Forest (RF) Classifier, RF Regressor, and Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LightGBM)—were trained on a dataset from 2017 to 2023 that included radiosonde, various remote sensing PBLHT estimates, and atmospheric meteorological conditions. Evaluations indicated that PBLHT-BE-ML from all three models improved alignment with PBLHT derived from Radiosonde data (PBLHT-Sonde), with LightGBM demonstrating the highest accuracy under both stable and unstable boundary layer conditions. Feature analysis revealed that the most influential input features at the SGP site were the PBLHT estimates derived from, a) potential temperature profiles retrieved using Raman Lidar (RL) and Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) measurements (PBLHT-THERMO), b) vertical velocity variance profiles Doppler Lidar (PBLHT-DL), and c) aerosol backscatter profiles from Micropulse Lidar (PBLHT-MPL). The trained models were then used to predict PBLHT-BE-ML at a temporal resolution of 10 minutes, effectively capturing the diurnal evolution of PBLHT and its significant seasonal variations, with the largest diurnal variation observed over summer at the SGP site. We applied these trained models to data from the ARM Eastern Pacific Cloud Aerosol Precipitation Experiment (EPCAPE) field campaign (EPC), where the PBLHT-BE-ML, particularly with the LightGBM model, demonstrated improved accuracy against PBLHT-Sonde. Analyses of model performance at both the SGP and EPC sites suggest that expanding the training dataset to include various surface types, such as ocean and ice-covered areas, could further enhance ML model performance for PBLHT estimation across varied geographic regions.
- Preprint
(10816 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4837 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 07 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3959', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Mar 2025
reply
In this paper, the authors used machine learning technique to produce a best-estimate PBLHT by integrating four PBLHT estimates derived from remote sensing measurements at the DOE ARM Southern Great Plains observatory. The paper is generally well written, and I have some minor comments for the authors to consider.
- Line 101: There is not ‘absolutely true PBLHT’ because there is no unique definition of boundary layer height. Different definitions or looking at different aspects of atmospheric boundary layer could lead to different boundary layer heights.
- Table 1: ‘PBLHT-sone’ should be ‘PBLHT-Sonde’ to be consistent with other places.
- Line 134: ‘the Heffter method (PBLHT-Heffter) determines PBLHT as the height of the base of the lowest inversion layer’ seems is not consistent with PBLHT-Heffter in Figure 1, which shows that PBLHT-Heffter is obvious higher than the base of the inversion layer.
- Line 139: define delta s.
- Line 184: delete ‘the’.
- Figure 1c: PBLHT-Heffter seems missing.
- Line 206: delete ‘a’
- Line 217: need to clarify what is ‘local gradient minima’. Does it mean the smallest gradient which is close to 0?
- Line 225: Is each quality index different with others? What if there are more than one PBLHT candidate that have the highest quality index?
- Line 284: Why did the PBLHT-THERMO only use the Heffter method? Did you try the Liu-Liang method and Bulk Richardson number method? In addition, it is the exactly the same as PBLHT-SONDE because PBLHT-SONDE uses three methods.
- Line 289: This might also because PBLHT-THERMO uses the Heffter method, which overestimate PBLHT at large PBLHT as shown in Figure 2a.
- Figure 4d, again the overestimation from PBLHT-THERMO might be caused by using the Heffter method.
- Line 418: delete ‘However’.
- Line 440: Change “Gain.” to “Gain”.
- Line 457: Please be specific what does ‘PBLHT-THERMO’ dominates?
- Line 461: I believe other environmental variables presented in the previous section should also be included as inputs to the ML models.
- Line 506: change it to “and use it to evaluate the predicted PBLHT-BE-ML”.
- Line 569: change the comma to ‘and’.
- Line 574: water vapor profiles are not used in the study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3959-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
151 | 21 | 5 | 177 | 9 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 151
- PDF: 21
- XML: 5
- Total: 177
- Supplement: 9
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1