Environmental Fluid Mechanics

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 373–398 | Cite as

Observations of urban boundary layer structure during a strong urban heat island event

  • J. F. Barlow
  • C. H. Halios
  • S. E. Lane
  • C. R. Wood
Original Article

Abstract

It has long been known that the urban surface energy balance is different to that of a rural surface, and that heating of the urban surface after sunset gives rise to the Urban Heat Island (UHI). Less well known is how flow and turbulence structure above the urban surface are changed during different phases of the urban boundary layer (UBL). This paper presents new observations above both an urban and rural surface and investigates how much UBL structure deviates from classical behaviour. A 5-day, low wind, cloudless, high pressure period over London, UK, was chosen for analysis, during which there was a strong UHI. Boundary layer evolution for both sites was determined by the diurnal cycle in sensible heat flux, with an extended decay period of approximately 4 h for the convective UBL. This is referred to as the “Urban Convective Island” as the surrounding rural area was already stable at this time. Mixing height magnitude depended on the combination of regional temperature profiles and surface temperature. Given the daytime UHI intensity of \(1.5\,^\circ \mathrm{C}\), combined with multiple inversions in the temperature profile, urban and rural mixing heights underwent opposite trends over the period, resulting in a factor of three height difference by the fifth day. Nocturnal jets undergoing inertial oscillations were observed aloft in the urban wind profile as soon as the rural boundary layer became stable: clear jet maxima over the urban surface only emerged once the UBL had become stable. This was due to mixing during the Urban Convective Island reducing shear. Analysis of turbulent moments (variance, skewness and kurtosis) showed “upside-down” boundary layer characteristics on some mornings during initial rapid growth of the convective UBL. During the “Urban Convective Island” phase, turbulence structure still resembled a classical convective boundary layer but with some influence from shear aloft, depending on jet strength. These results demonstrate that appropriate choice of Doppler lidar scan patterns can give detailed profiles of UBL flow. Insights drawn from the observations have implications for accuracy of boundary conditions when simulating urban flow and dispersion, as the UBL is clearly the result of processes driven not only by local surface conditions but also regional atmospheric structure.

Keywords

Urban boundary layer Doppler lidar Urban heat island Turbulence profiles 

References

  1. 1.
    Mestayer PG, Durand P, Augustin P et al (2005) The urban boundary-layer field campaign in Marseille (UBL/CLU-ESCOMPTE): set-up and first results. Bound Layer Meteorol 114:315–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Masson V, Gomes L, Pigeon G et al (2008) The canopy and aerosol particles interactions in Toulouse urban layer (CAPITOUL) experiment. Meteorol Atmos Phys 102(3–4):135–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pal S, Xuref-Remy I, Ammoura L et al (2012) Spatio-temporal variability of the atmospheric boundary layer depth over the Paris agglomeration: an assessment of the impact of the urban heat island intensity. Atmos Environ 63:261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kallistratova MA, Kouznetsov RD (2011) Low-level jets in the Moscow region in summer and winter observed with a sodar network. Bound Layer Meteorol 143(1):159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang Y, Klipp C, Garvey DM, Ligon DA, Williamson CC, Chang SS, Newsom RK, Calhoun R (2007) Nocturnal low-level-jet-dominated boundary layer observed by a Doppler lidar over Oklahoma City during JU2003. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46(12):2098–2109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lundquist JK, Mirocha JD (2008) Interaction of nocturnal low-level jets with urban geometries as seen in Joint Urban 2003 data. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47(1):44–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roth M (2000) Review of atmospheric turbulence over cities. Q J R Meteorol Soc 126:941–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barlow JF, Dunbar TM, Nemitz EG, Wood CR, Gallagher MW, Davies F, O’Connor E, Harrison RM (2011) Boundary layer dynamics over London, UK, as observed using Doppler lidar during REPARTEE-II. Atmos Chem Phys 11:2111–2125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seibert P, Geyrich F, Gryning SE, Joffre S, Rasmussen A, Tercier P (2000) Review and intercomparison of operational methods for the determination of the mixing height. Atmos Environ 34:1001–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emeis S, Schäfer K, Münkel C (2008) Surface-based remote sensing of the mixing-layer height: a review. Meteorol Z 17(5):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Otkin JA, Hartung DC, Turner DD et al (2011) Assimilation of surface-based boundary layer profiler observations during a cool-season weather event using an observing system simulation experiment. Part I: analysis impact. Mon Weather Rev 139(8):2309–2326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collier CG, Davies F, Bozier KE, Holt AR, Middleton DR, Pearson GN, Siemen S, Willetts DV, Upton GJG, Young RI (2005) Dual-Doppler lidar measurements for improving dispersion models. B Am Meteorol Soc 86:825–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calhoun R, Heap R, Princevac M, Newsom R, Fernando H, Ligon D (2006) Virtual towers using coherent Doppler lidar during the Joint Urban 2003 dispersion experiment. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 45:1116–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wood CR, Lacser A, Barlow JF, Padhra A, Belcher SE, Nemitz E, Helfter C, Famulari D, Grimmond CSB (2010) Turbulent flow at 190 m above London during 2006–2008: a climatology and the applicability of similarity theory. Bound Layer Meteorol 137:77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helfter C, Famulari D, Phillips GJ, Barlow JF, Wood CR, Grimmond CSB, Nemitz E (2011) Controls of carbon dioxide concentrations and fluxes above central London. Amos Chem Phys 11:1913–1928Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lane SE, Barlow JF, Wood CR (2013) An assessment of a three-beam Doppler lidar wind profiling method for use in urban areas. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 119:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barlow JF, Harrison J, Robins AG, Wood CR (2011) A wind-tunnel study of flow distortion at a meteorological sensor on top of the BT Tower, London. UK. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99(9):899–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barlow JF, Dobre A, Smalley RJ, Arnold SJ, Tomlin AS, Belcher SE (2009) Referencing of street-level flows: results from the DAPPLE 2004 campaign in London, UK. Atmos Environ 43:5536–5544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilczak JM, Oncley SP, Stage SA (2001) Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms. Bound Layer Meteorol 99:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hogan RJ, Grant ALM, Illingworth AJ, Pearson GN (2009) Vertical velocity variance and skewness in clear and cloud-topped boundary layers as revealed by Doppler lidar. Q J R Meteorol Soc 135:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oke TR (1987) Boundary layer climates, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bohnenstengel SI, Evans S, Clark PA, Belcher SE (2011) Simulations of the London urban heat island. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137(659):1625–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blackadar AK (1957) Boundary layer wind maxima and their significance for the growth of nocturnal inversions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 38:283–290Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drew DR, Barlow JF, Lane SE (2013) Observations of wind speed profiles over Greater London, UK, using a Doppler lidar. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 121:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van der Wiel B, Moene G, Steeneveld G, Baas P, Bosveld FC, Holtslag AAM (2010) A conceptual view on inertial oscillations and nocturnal low-level jets. J Atmos Sci 67(8):2679–2689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baas P, van den Wiel B, van den Brink, Holtslag AAM (2012) Composite hodographs and inertial oscillations in the nocturnal boundary layer. Q J R Meteorol Soc 138(663):528–535Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lenschow DH, Mann J, Kristensen L (1994) How long is long enough when measuring fluxes and other turbulence statistics. J Atmos Ocean Technol 11:661–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lenschow DH, Wyngaard JC, Pennell WT (1980) Mean-field and second-moment budgets in a baroclinic, convective boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 37:1313–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sorbjan Z (1990) Similarity scales and universal profiles of statistical moments in the convective boundary layer. J Appl Meteorol 30:1565–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lenschow DH, Lothon M, Mayor SD, Sullivan P, Canut G (2012) A comparison of higher-order vertical velocity moments in the convective boundary layer from lidar with in-situ measurements and large-eddy simulation. Bound Layer Meteorol 143(1):107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahrt L (1999) Stratified atmospheric boundary layers. Bound Layer Meteorol 90(3):375–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Banta RM, Pichugina YL, Brewer WA (2006) Turbulent velocity-variance profiles in the stable boundary layer generated by a nocturnal low-level jet. J Atmos Sci 63(11):2700–2719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maurizi A (2006) On the dependence of third- and fourth-order moments on stability in the turbulent boundary layer. Nonlinear Process Geophys 13:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. F. Barlow
    • 1
  • C. H. Halios
    • 1
  • S. E. Lane
    • 2
  • C. R. Wood
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MeteorologyUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.Department of Meteorology, Met Office Research Unit (Cardington)Cardington AirfieldBedfordshireUK
  3. 3.Finnish Meteorological InstituteHelsinki Finland

Personalised recommendations