1998
DOI: 10.1175/1520-0426(1998)015<0887:aqcogb>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Quantitative Comparison of Ground-Based FSSP and PVM Measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The parameter m was considered to be constant and set to 0.73 as proposed by the manufacturer. In addition, the concentration was corrected for a varying velocity acceptance ratio (Wendisch, 1998), which was simultaneously measured. A comparison of different correction schemes for concentration measurements with the FSSP is given by Brenguier (1989).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The parameter m was considered to be constant and set to 0.73 as proposed by the manufacturer. In addition, the concentration was corrected for a varying velocity acceptance ratio (Wendisch, 1998), which was simultaneously measured. A comparison of different correction schemes for concentration measurements with the FSSP is given by Brenguier (1989).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The LWC , calculated from the corrected FSSP data [], were compared to the LWC directly measured by the PVM, which revealed the following correlation equation (correlation coefficient R 2 of 0.81): The systematic underestimation of the LWC by the PVM may be a result of decreasing sensitivity of the PVM with increasing droplet diameter as reported by Arends et al (1992), Wendisch et al (1998) and Wendisch (1998), but may also be explained by a varying sample volume of the FSSP. Wind tunnel tests of the airborne version of the PVM (the PVM‐100A) have also shown a decreasing sensitivity of the PVM with increasing droplet diameter (Wendisch et al, 2001).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consistently, Meyer et al (1980) observed that droplets were formed at 1-2 km visibility range, and Jiusto (1981) defined light fog by visibility between 1 and 5 km. Such visibility was caused by few rather large droplets that contributed more to LWC and less to the extinction coefficient: the droplet effective diameter was larger than the monthly average of 15 ± 3 µm, similar to Wendisch et al (1998), and droplet number concentration was smaller (8-45 cm −3 ) than the monthly average of 100 ± 50 cm −3 . That high values of fog visibility demonstrate that the diffusometer alone is not able to distinguish the main cause of the visibility reduction, between aerosols or droplets.…”
Section: Fogmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that the FSSP has both sizing and counting deficiencies [Dye and Baurngardner, 1984; Baurngardner et al, 1985; Baumgardner and Spowart, 1990] which in turn can cause errors in the measurements of re [Gerber, 1996;Wendisch, 1998]. However, the focus of this study is on ix, its dependence on the spectral dispersion, and its effect on the parameterized re given L and N. Any error in L and/or N will exert the same effect on all the parameterization schemes.…”
Section: Comparison Of Measured and Parameterized R•mentioning
confidence: 99%