the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
In situ airborne measurements of atmospheric parameters and airborne sea surface properties related to offshore wind parks in the German Bight during the project X-Wakes
Abstract. Between 14 March 2020 and 11 September 2021, meteorological measurement flights were conducted above the German Bight in the framework of the project X-Wakes. The scope of the measurements was to study the transition of the wind field and atmospheric stability from the coast to the sea, to study the interaction of wind park wakes, and to study the large-scale modification of the marine atmospheric boundary layer by the presence of wind parks. In total 49 measurement flights were performed with the research aircraft Dornier 128 of the Technische Universität (TU) Braunschweig during different seasons and different stability conditions. Seven of the flights in the time period from 24 to 30 July 2021 were coordinated with a second research aircraft, the Cessna F406 of TU Braunschweig. The instrumentation of both aircraft consisted of a nose boom with sensors for measuring the wind vector, temperature and humidity, and additionally a surface temperature sensor. The Dornier 128 was further equipped with a laser scanner for deriving sea state properties and two downward looking cameras in the visible and infrared wavelength range. The Cessna F406 was additionally equipped with shortwave and longwave broadband radiation sensors for measuring upward and downward solar and terrestrial radiation. A detailed overview of the aircraft, sensors, data post-processing and flight patterns is provided here. Further, averaged profiles of atmospheric parameters illustrate the range of conditions. The potential use of the data set has been shown already by first publications. The data of both aircraft are publicly available in the world data centre PANGAEA: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.955382 (Rausch et al., 2023).
- Preprint
(16698 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(125035 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-56', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jun 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-56/essd-2024-56-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-56', Tobias Gerken, 11 Jul 2024
To move the review process along, I have assigned myself as a reviewer following journal policy.
Overall, I find that the manuscript is well-written and that data and data description are useful to the community.
I recommend to consider the following issues:
1. I am not sure I missed this, but could you make sure that you clarify in the text what the reference for above sea level is and how (if at all this might be different from the actual height above the surface).
L 80: Please provide additional calibration and correction information about the instruments. Either here or in other suitable locations
L131: "The accuracy of the three wind speed components is better than 0.2 m s−1" > Please expand on how this is known.
Table 2 and 3: I suggest o provide measures of variation during flight legs on altitude, wind speed, and wind direction. Also, specify that satellite overpass time is UTC for completion.
Figure 4a: Are all of these data from the same altitude or does this include profiles? Please provide additional information in figure legends (or filter for constant altitude). Also, it appears that the large marker size obscures some spatial patterns. I am unsure how this can be avoided practically, but a smaller marker or data gridding might help.
Figure 5. Same comments about the turns. It would be good to establish, why wind speeds at the turns appear different than within the legs. Altitude changes or profiles would be a simple explanation.
Figures 6, 7, 8, 10. I am not sure that the histograms in the back are helpful. They certainly should have an associated legend if kept. I would recommend either performing a more meaningful binning or presenting a smaller number of histograms from representative heights in separate subplots. One should also consider conversion to potential temperature.
Figure 7: I am a bit confused about the lapse rate. A zero lapse rate in potential temperature would mean neutral. T would be a confusing variable name choice for potential temperature. I suggest clarifying this in the text and also within the figure legend.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-56-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-56/essd-2024-56-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-56', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jun 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-56/essd-2024-56-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-56', Tobias Gerken, 11 Jul 2024
To move the review process along, I have assigned myself as a reviewer following journal policy.
Overall, I find that the manuscript is well-written and that data and data description are useful to the community.
I recommend to consider the following issues:
1. I am not sure I missed this, but could you make sure that you clarify in the text what the reference for above sea level is and how (if at all this might be different from the actual height above the surface).
L 80: Please provide additional calibration and correction information about the instruments. Either here or in other suitable locations
L131: "The accuracy of the three wind speed components is better than 0.2 m s−1" > Please expand on how this is known.
Table 2 and 3: I suggest o provide measures of variation during flight legs on altitude, wind speed, and wind direction. Also, specify that satellite overpass time is UTC for completion.
Figure 4a: Are all of these data from the same altitude or does this include profiles? Please provide additional information in figure legends (or filter for constant altitude). Also, it appears that the large marker size obscures some spatial patterns. I am unsure how this can be avoided practically, but a smaller marker or data gridding might help.
Figure 5. Same comments about the turns. It would be good to establish, why wind speeds at the turns appear different than within the legs. Altitude changes or profiles would be a simple explanation.
Figures 6, 7, 8, 10. I am not sure that the histograms in the back are helpful. They certainly should have an associated legend if kept. I would recommend either performing a more meaningful binning or presenting a smaller number of histograms from representative heights in separate subplots. One should also consider conversion to potential temperature.
Figure 7: I am a bit confused about the lapse rate. A zero lapse rate in potential temperature would mean neutral. T would be a confusing variable name choice for potential temperature. I suggest clarifying this in the text and also within the figure legend.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-56-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-56/essd-2024-56-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Astrid Lampert, 09 Aug 2024
Data sets
In-situ airborne measurements of atmospheric and sea surface parameters related to offshore wind parks in the German Bight T. Rausch et al. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.955382
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
369 | 69 | 41 | 479 | 42 | 31 | 34 |
- HTML: 369
- PDF: 69
- XML: 41
- Total: 479
- Supplement: 42
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 34
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1