2018
DOI: 10.5194/amt-11-3645-2018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Laboratory and in-flight evaluation of measurement uncertainties from a commercial Cloud Droplet Probe (CDP)

Abstract: Abstract. Laboratory and in-flight evaluations of uncertainties of measurements from a Cloud Droplet Probe (CDP) are presented. A description of a water-droplet-generating device, similar to those used in previous studies, is provided along with validation of droplet sizing and positioning. Seven experiments with droplet diameters of 9, 17, 24, 29, 34, 38, and 46 µm tested sizing and counting performance across a 10 µm resolution grid throughout the sample area of a CDP. Results indicate errors in sizing that … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
33
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
3
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For cases with LWC larger than 0.3 g m −3 , the agreement becomes worse, implying the decreasing reliability of the King probe. Figure 2 also suggests that the LWCs from the two probes agree much better for liquid‐phase clouds than for mixed‐phase clouds, simply because the ice in the mixed‐phase clouds may affect the King probe by possible contamination (Faber et al, 2018). To avoid this potential contamination error, the LWC from CDP is used in this study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For cases with LWC larger than 0.3 g m −3 , the agreement becomes worse, implying the decreasing reliability of the King probe. Figure 2 also suggests that the LWCs from the two probes agree much better for liquid‐phase clouds than for mixed‐phase clouds, simply because the ice in the mixed‐phase clouds may affect the King probe by possible contamination (Faber et al, 2018). To avoid this potential contamination error, the LWC from CDP is used in this study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The Cloud Droplet Probe (CDP) is an optical probe which measures cloud droplet size distribution in 30 size bins ranging from 2 to 50 μm in diameter ( D ) (Lance et al, 2010) with an uncertainty of 20% (Faber et al, 2018). The Two‐Dimensional Stereo Particle Imaging Probe (2DS) is an optical array probe which uses images to get cloud particle size distribution with D ranging from 10 to 1,260 μm (Lawson, 2011; Lawson et al, 2006).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cloud liquid water content (LWC) was derived from the third moment of the size distribution measured by the CDP. Comparisons between CDP-derived LWC and that from various bulk methods including a DMT LWC-100 hot-wire, a Nevzorov probe (Korolev et al, 1998), and a Gerber Particle Volume Monitor-100A (PVM; Gerber, 1993) show agreement generally within 10 to 15 % over the entire COPE campaign (Sulskis and French, 2016;Faber et al, 2018). Two optical array probes (OAPs) were used to derive information about hydrometeors larger than a few tens of microns.…”
Section: Uwka In Situ Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Korolev et al (2013) and Jackson et al (2014) estimated that shattering can cause particle number concentrations to be overestimated by up to an order of magnitude and recommended that mitigation approaches should include both modified probe tips coupled with processing algorithms to identify and remove shattered artifacts. The CIP was equipped with modified "anti-shatter" tips and the interarrival time algorithm of Field et al (2006) was applied during processing of the OAP data. In order to determine the threshold used to identify shattered artifacts, an analysis of inter-arrival times was first applied to time periods where only ice was seen in the CIP imagery and the CDP number concentrations were < 1 cm −3 in order to ensure that liquid particles were not present.…”
Section: Oap Processing Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mertes et al, 2001;Bukarel et al, 2002;Henning et al, 2002;Eugster et al, 2006;Lihavainen et al, 2008;Loyd et al, 2015) and airborne measurements (e.g. Knollenberg et al,1981;Heymsfeld et al, 2004;Bromwich et al, 2012;Johnson et al, 2012, Jones et al, 2012, Briswick et al, 2014Korolev et al, 2014;Petäjä et al, 2016;Webke et al, 2016;Vogt et al, 2017;Faber et al, 2018) In addition to above mentioned experiments, many studies were done to quantify biases, uncertainties and limitations of 20 cloud spectrometers while they were used in measurement campaigns. Uncertainties were usually a result of different meteorological conditions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%