Show simple item record

contributor authorVidaurre, German
contributor authorHallett, John
contributor authorRogers, David C.
date accessioned2017-06-09T17:23:51Z
date available2017-06-09T17:23:51Z
date copyright2011/09/01
date issued2011
identifier issn0739-0572
identifier otherams-84502.pdf
identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4227846
description abstractwo identical liquid water content (LWC) King probes?one total water content/liquid water content (TWC/LWC) Nevzorov probe and two constant-temperature T probes that are different in size to distinguish particles of different densities and diameters (section 2c)?were flown during the Alliance Icing Research Study (AIRS) II field campaign in the fall of 2003. This paper assesses measurements performed during several flights in mostly stratiform clouds. The two LWC King probes tracked well; however, discrepancies of up to 0.1 g m?3 for 1-s LWC measurements of 0.3 g m?3 were observed. Agreement between probes of different geometry and size was generally favorable, while levels of disagreement between the probes changed during numerous cloud penetrations from less than 20% up to a factor of 2, varying with flight conditions and microphysical structure of the cloud. Disagreement between probes was even larger when detecting ice water content (IWC). Measurement differences were attributed to different collection efficiencies resulting from preferred particle size, shape, and density and local aerodynamic effects around the aircraft. Measurements from a single probe are subject to uncertainty at a single point in time beyond the noise and drift level of the instrument. This uncertainty is evaluated considering particle habit, diameter, and density, and probe geometry and size, in addition to particle impact, breakup/splash, and bounce. From a working point of view, the intercomparison of several probes is subject to real but unknown spatial differences because of different locations between air samples. Comparison of identical probes is not appropriate because each measurement in itself is unique by definition. Thus, instead of duplication of instruments, subject to these levels of agreement, the use of a single probe is a practical approach while remaining aware of its limitations and capabilities.
publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
titleAirborne Measurement of Liquid and Total Water Content
typeJournal Paper
journal volume28
journal issue9
journal titleJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
identifier doi10.1175/JTECH-D-10-05035.1
journal fristpage1088
journal lastpage1103
treeJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology:;2011:;volume( 028 ):;issue: 009
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record