{"title":"史蒂文森屏内自然气流的测量及其对空气温度和湿度记录的影响","authors":"S. Burt","doi":"10.5194/gi-11-263-2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Climate science depends upon accurate measurements of air temperature and\nhumidity, the majority of which are still derived from sensors exposed\nwithin passively ventilated louvred Stevenson-type thermometer screens. It\nis well-documented that, under certain circumstances, air temperatures\nmeasured within such screens can differ significantly from “true” air\ntemperatures measured by other methods, such as aspirated sensors.\nPassively ventilated screens depend upon wind motion to provide ventilation\nwithin the screen and thus airflow over the sensors contained therein.\nConsequently, instances of anomalous temperatures occur most often during\nlight winds when airflow through the screen is weakest, particularly when in\ncombination with strong or low-angle incident solar radiation. Adequate\nventilation is essential for reliable and consistent measurements of both\nair temperature and humidity, yet very few systematic comparisons to\nquantify relationships between external wind speed and airflow within a\nthermometer screen have been made. This paper addresses that gap by\nsummarizing the results of a 3-month field experiment in which airflow\nwithin a UK-standard Stevenson screen was measured using a sensitive sonic\nanemometer and comparisons made with simultaneous wind speed and direction\nrecords from the same site. The mean in-screen ventilation rate was found to\nbe 0.2 m s−1 (median 0.18 m s−1), well below the 1 m s−1\nminimum assumed in meteorological and design standard references, and only\nabout 7 % of the scalar mean wind speed at 10 m. The implications of low\nin-screen ventilation on the uncertainty of air temperature and humidity\nmeasurements from Stevenson-type thermometer screens are discussed,\nparticularly those due to the differing response times of dry- and wet-bulb\ntemperature sensors and ambiguity in the value of the psychrometric\ncoefficient.\n","PeriodicalId":48742,"journal":{"name":"Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurements of natural airflow within a Stevenson screen and its influence on air temperature and humidity records\",\"authors\":\"S. Burt\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/gi-11-263-2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Climate science depends upon accurate measurements of air temperature and\\nhumidity, the majority of which are still derived from sensors exposed\\nwithin passively ventilated louvred Stevenson-type thermometer screens. It\\nis well-documented that, under certain circumstances, air temperatures\\nmeasured within such screens can differ significantly from “true” air\\ntemperatures measured by other methods, such as aspirated sensors.\\nPassively ventilated screens depend upon wind motion to provide ventilation\\nwithin the screen and thus airflow over the sensors contained therein.\\nConsequently, instances of anomalous temperatures occur most often during\\nlight winds when airflow through the screen is weakest, particularly when in\\ncombination with strong or low-angle incident solar radiation. Adequate\\nventilation is essential for reliable and consistent measurements of both\\nair temperature and humidity, yet very few systematic comparisons to\\nquantify relationships between external wind speed and airflow within a\\nthermometer screen have been made. This paper addresses that gap by\\nsummarizing the results of a 3-month field experiment in which airflow\\nwithin a UK-standard Stevenson screen was measured using a sensitive sonic\\nanemometer and comparisons made with simultaneous wind speed and direction\\nrecords from the same site. The mean in-screen ventilation rate was found to\\nbe 0.2 m s−1 (median 0.18 m s−1), well below the 1 m s−1\\nminimum assumed in meteorological and design standard references, and only\\nabout 7 % of the scalar mean wind speed at 10 m. The implications of low\\nin-screen ventilation on the uncertainty of air temperature and humidity\\nmeasurements from Stevenson-type thermometer screens are discussed,\\nparticularly those due to the differing response times of dry- and wet-bulb\\ntemperature sensors and ambiguity in the value of the psychrometric\\ncoefficient.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":48742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-263-2022\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-11-263-2022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
摘要气候科学依赖于对空气温度和湿度的精确测量,其中大部分仍然来自暴露在被动通风百叶窗史蒂文森式温度计屏幕中的传感器。有充分的证据表明,在某些情况下,在这种屏幕内测量的空气温度可能与通过其他方法(如吸气传感器)测量的“真实”空气温度存在显著差异。被动通风的屏幕取决于风的运动,以在屏幕内提供通风,从而在其中包含的传感器上提供气流。因此,当穿过屏幕的气流最弱时,特别是当与强或低角度入射的太阳辐射结合时,在微风中最常发生异常温度的情况。充分的测量对于可靠和一致地测量空气温度和湿度至关重要,但很少有系统的比较来量化外部风速和温度计屏幕内气流之间的关系。本文通过总结一项为期3个月的现场实验的结果来解决这一差距,在该实验中,使用灵敏的声波动量计测量了英国标准史蒂文森屏幕内的气流,并将其与来自同一地点的同时风速和风向记录进行了比较。筛内平均通气率为0.2 m s−1(中位数0.18 m s−1),远低于1 m 气象和设计标准参考中假设的s−1最小值,仅约为7 % 10时的标量平均风速 m.讨论了低屏通风对Stevenson型温度计屏的空气温度和湿度测量不确定度的影响,特别是由于干球温度传感器和湿球温度传感器的响应时间不同以及湿度系数值的模糊性造成的影响。
Measurements of natural airflow within a Stevenson screen and its influence on air temperature and humidity records
Abstract. Climate science depends upon accurate measurements of air temperature and
humidity, the majority of which are still derived from sensors exposed
within passively ventilated louvred Stevenson-type thermometer screens. It
is well-documented that, under certain circumstances, air temperatures
measured within such screens can differ significantly from “true” air
temperatures measured by other methods, such as aspirated sensors.
Passively ventilated screens depend upon wind motion to provide ventilation
within the screen and thus airflow over the sensors contained therein.
Consequently, instances of anomalous temperatures occur most often during
light winds when airflow through the screen is weakest, particularly when in
combination with strong or low-angle incident solar radiation. Adequate
ventilation is essential for reliable and consistent measurements of both
air temperature and humidity, yet very few systematic comparisons to
quantify relationships between external wind speed and airflow within a
thermometer screen have been made. This paper addresses that gap by
summarizing the results of a 3-month field experiment in which airflow
within a UK-standard Stevenson screen was measured using a sensitive sonic
anemometer and comparisons made with simultaneous wind speed and direction
records from the same site. The mean in-screen ventilation rate was found to
be 0.2 m s−1 (median 0.18 m s−1), well below the 1 m s−1
minimum assumed in meteorological and design standard references, and only
about 7 % of the scalar mean wind speed at 10 m. The implications of low
in-screen ventilation on the uncertainty of air temperature and humidity
measurements from Stevenson-type thermometer screens are discussed,
particularly those due to the differing response times of dry- and wet-bulb
temperature sensors and ambiguity in the value of the psychrometric
coefficient.
期刊介绍:
Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (GI) is an open-access interdisciplinary electronic journal for swift publication of original articles and short communications in the area of geoscientific instruments. It covers three main areas: (i) atmospheric and geospace sciences, (ii) earth science, and (iii) ocean science. A unique feature of the journal is the emphasis on synergy between science and technology that facilitates advances in GI. These advances include but are not limited to the following:
concepts, design, and description of instrumentation and data systems;
retrieval techniques of scientific products from measurements;
calibration and data quality assessment;
uncertainty in measurements;
newly developed and planned research platforms and community instrumentation capabilities;
major national and international field campaigns and observational research programs;
new observational strategies to address societal needs in areas such as monitoring climate change and preventing natural disasters;
networking of instruments for enhancing high temporal and spatial resolution of observations.
GI has an innovative two-stage publication process involving the scientific discussion forum Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems Discussions (GID), which has been designed to do the following:
foster scientific discussion;
maximize the effectiveness and transparency of scientific quality assurance;
enable rapid publication;
make scientific publications freely accessible.