Approaches to infer wind field from airborne Doppler radar data
Keywords:wind field, airborne Doppler radar, methods to infer wind field
AbstractThis paper presents a review of some methods to infer wind components from airborne radar Doppler data. The methods presented are COPLAN, MANDOP and CARTESIANO (000, quad-Doppler and EODD). Here are presented the essential bases of the methods and its advantages and limitations.
Armijo, L., 1969: A theory for the determination of wind and precipitation velocities with Doppler radars. J. Atmos. Sei., 26, 570-573.
Chong, M., and J. Testud, 1983: Three-dimensional wind field analysis from dual-Doppler radar data. Pari 111: The boundary condition: An optimum determination based on a varitional concept. . J. Clima te Appl. Meteor., 22,1227-1241.
Chong, M.; C.R.J., Campos, 1996: Extended overdetermined dual-Doppler formalism in sinthesizing airborne Doppler radar data. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 13, 581-597.
Chong, M., and J. Testud, 1996: Three-dimensional air circulation in a squall line from airborne dual-beam Doppler radar data: A test of coplane methodology software. J. Almas. Oceano Technol., 13, 36-53.
Cressman, G. W., 1959: An operational objective analysis system. Mon. Wea. Rer., 87, 367-374.
Dou, X., 1993: Extension d'une méthode d'analyse de données de radar Doppler au cas d'un radar Doppler aéroporté. Application à I'étude d'une ligne de grains tropicale. These de Doctoret, Université Paris 7, p.208.
Frush, C. L., P. H. Hildebrand, and C. Walther, 1986: The NCAR airborne Doppler radar. Part II: System design considerations. Preprints 23rd Radar Meteorology Conf., Snowmass, Amer. Meteor. Soe., 151-154.
Heymsfield, G. M., 1978: Kinetic and dynamic aspects of the Harrah tornadic storm analyzed from dual-Doppler radar data. Mon. Wea. Rer.,106, 233-254.
Hildebrand, P. H., and C. K. Mueller, 1985: Evaluation of meteorological airborne Doppler radar. Part I: Dual-Doppler analyses of air motions. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 2, 362-380.
Hildebrand, P. H., C. A. Walther, C.1. Frush, J. testud, and F. Baudin, 1994: The ELDORA/ASTRAIA airborne Doppler weather radar: Goals, design, and first field tests. Proc. IEEE, 82,1873-1890.
Jorgensen, D. P., and J. D. DuGranrut, 1991: A dual-beam technique for deriving wind fields from airborne Doppler radar. Preprints 23rd Radar Meteorology Coni., Paris, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 458-461.
Jorgensen, D. P., P. H. Hildebrand, and C. L. Frush, 1983: Feasibility test of an airborne pulse-Doppler meteorological radar. J. Clima te Appl. Meteor., 22, 744-757.
Jorgensen, D. P., T. Matejka, and J. D. DuGranrut, 1995: Multi-beam techniques for deriving wind fields from airborne Doppler radars. J. Me teor. Atmos. Physics, Springer-Verlag (In Press).
Lhermitte, R. M., and L. J. Miller, 1970: Doppler radar methodology for the observation of convective storms. Preprints 14th Radar Meteorology Cont., Tucson, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 133-138.
Matejka, T. J., and R. C. Srivastava, 1982: A method for determining mesoscale air motion for cloud physical studies and its application to the water budget of a squall line. Preprints 2dh Conto on Radar Meteor., Boston, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 353-357.
Miller, L. J., and R. G. Strauch, 1974: A dual-Doppler radar method for the determination of wind velocities within precipitating weather systems. Remote Sensing environ, 3, 219-235.
O'Brien, J.J., 1970: Alternative solutions to the classical vertical velocity problem. J. Appl. Meteor., 9,197-203.
Ray, P. S., C. L. Ziegler, W. Bumgarner, and R. J. Serafin, 1980: Single- and multiple- Doppler radar observations of tornadic storms. Mon. Wea. Rer.,108,1607-1625.
Ray, P. S., D. P. Jorgensen, and S. L. Wang, 1985: Airbone Doppler radar observations of a convective storm. J. Climate Appl. Me teor. , 24, 687-698.
Ray, P. S., and M. Stephenson, 1990: assessment of the geometry and temporal errors associated with airborne Doppler radar measurements of a convective storm. J. Atmos Oceanic Technol., 7, 206-217.
Scialorn, G., and Y. Lemaitre, 1990: A new analysis for the retrieval of three-dimensional mesoescale win fields Irom multiple Doppler radar. J. Atomos. Oceanic Technol.,7, 640-665.
Testud, J., and M. Chong, 1983: Three-dimensional wind field analysis from dual-Doppler radar data. Part I: Filtering, interpolating and differentiating the raw data. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 22,1204-1215.
Webster, P. J. and Lukas, R., 1992: TOGA-COARE: The coupled ocean atmosphere response experiment. BulI. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 73:1377-1416.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.