Airborne Measurement of Liquid and Total Water Content

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 1088-1103 ◽  
Author(s):  
German Vidaurre ◽  
John Hallett ◽  
David C. Rogers

Abstract Two 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.

2007 ◽  
Vol 133 (628) ◽  
pp. 1693-1699 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. V. Korolev ◽  
G. A. Isaac ◽  
J. W. Strapp ◽  
S. G. Cober ◽  
H. W. Barker

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Techel ◽  
C. Pielmeier

Abstract. Information about the volume and the spatial and temporal distribution of liquid water in snow is important for forecasting wet snow avalanches and for predicting melt-water run-off. The distribution of liquid water in snow is commonly estimated from point measurements using a "hand" squeeze test, or a dielectric device such as a "Snow Fork" or a "Denoth meter". Here we compare estimates of water content in the Swiss Alps made using the hand test to those made with a Snow Fork and a Denoth meter. Measurements were conducted in the Swiss Alps, mostly above tree line; more than 12 000 measurements were made at 85 locations over 30 days. Results show that the hand test generally over estimates the volumetric liquid water content. Estimates using the Snow Fork are generally 1 % higher than those derived from the Denoth meter. The measurements were also used to investigate temporal and small-scale spatial patterns of wetness. Results show that typically a single point measurement does not characterize the wetness of the surrounding snow. Large diurnal changes in wetness are common in the near-surface snow, and associated changes at depth were also observed. A single vertical profile of measurements is not sufficient to determine whether these changes were a result of a spatially homogeneous wetting front or caused by infiltration through pipes. Based on our observations, we suggest that three measurements at horizontal distances greater than 50 cm are needed to adequately characterize the distribution of liquid water through a snowpack. Further, we suggest a simplified classification scheme that includes five wetness patterns that incorporate both the vertical and horizontal distribution of liquid water in a snowpack.


Sensors ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Pérez Díaz ◽  
Jonathan Muñoz ◽  
Tarendra Lakhankar ◽  
Reza Khanbilvardi ◽  
Peter Romanov

1981 ◽  
Vol 27 (95) ◽  
pp. 175-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. M. Morris

Abstract Field trials show that the liquid-water content of snow can be determined simply and cheaply by a version of Bader’s solution method.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document