ARM - Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter, 2 column instrument
Aerosol Observing System (AOS) CCN200 data stream
2 column instrument↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “2 column instrument”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Ship-based Observations and Climate Model Simulations of Cloud Phase over the Southern Ocean
The Southern Ocean (SO) clouds exert a significant influence on the Earth’s radiation budget. Here we analyzed ship-based remote sensing observations of SO clouds over a five-month long DOE ARM Measurements of Aerosols, Radiation and Clouds over the Southern Oceans (MARCUS) field campaign to better understand cloud phase variability. We developed a method to classify eight categories of hydrometeors (ice, liquid, mixed phase, rain, drizzle, snow, aerosols, and clear sky) based on measurements of lidar, radar and radiosondes. Cloud thermodynamic phases (liquid, ice and mixed phase) at coarser scales were further derived to compare with the DOE Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1 (E3SMv1) simulation and the Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC 2 ) instrument simulator. For a scale-aware comparison with climate model simulations, we found that spatially averaging the raw remote sensing data (e.g., backscatter, reflectivity) results in increased cloud cover and cloud liquid, whereas, directly averaging cloud phase from higher to lower resolution maintains clear air regions and is thus recommended for in-cloud frequency comparisons. For cloud thermodynamic phases in stratiform clouds, the E3SM underestimates cloud ice and overestimates cloud liquid at temperatures between -40 and 0°C. When latitudes increase, both observations and simulations show a transition of dominant phase from liquid to ice for cloud tops as well as for the entire cloud columns, but the model underestimation of ice phase is more severe at higher latitudes. Such model bias is unlikely caused by spatial scale differences or lack of heterogeneity in cloud vertical structure in the simulation.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Reconciliation of asynchronous satellite-based $\mathrm{NO_2}$ and $\mathrm{XCO_2}$ enhancements with mesoscale modeling over two urban landscapes
Fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO 2ff ), the main driver of global warming and climate change, is often co-emitted with nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and precursors to ground-level ozone from anthropogenic sources like power plants or vehicles. In urban and suburban areas, satellite-based NO 2 can be used as a proxy to track the emissions of CO 2ff . Because of NO 2 ’s shorter lifetime, urban NO 2 plumes are more distinguishable from backgrounds and more sensitive to variations in emissions. However, the combination of these two gases is limited by the asynchrony among NO 2 and CO 2 monitoring satellites. We used CO 2ff simulated by the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with Chemistry (WRF-Chem) model to reconcile the tropospheric NO 2 vertical column density (VCD) from the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) and column-averaged dry-air mole fractions of carbon dioxide enhancements (ΔXCO 2 ) from Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3) Snapshot Area Maps (SAMs) over a multicity area, Washington D.C.-Baltimore (DC-Balt), and a basin city, Mexico City. NO 2 /CO 2ff ratios over DC-Balt are smaller than Mexico City, indicative of stricter emission restrictions, a more combustion-efficient vehicle fleet, and higher combustion efficiency due to lower altitude in DC-Balt. For single-track cases, the spatial correlations between NO 2 and ΔXCO 2 over Mexico City are stronger than DC-Balt because the NO 2 and CO 2 are mostly trapped in the valley of Mexico City, while DC-Balt is severely affected by distant sources (i.e., US East Coast cities). Using multi-track averaging, spatial correlation coefficients increase with the number of days used for averaging. The correlations reached a maximum when averaging >12 continuous images for DC-Balt and > 10 continuous images for Mexico City. This finding indicates that multi-track averaging using modeled CO 2ff as a proxy is helpful to filter the noise in single-track images, to cancel the interference from distant sources, and to magnify correlations between NO 2 and CO 2ff . Mexico City showed stronger spatial correlations but weaker temporal correlations than DC-Balt due to biomass burning hot spots and large transport errors caused by the trapping effects of the surrounding mountains. Tracking the 20-day moving average of CO 2ff emissions using TROPOMI NO 2 seems technically feasible, considering the relationship between correlation coefficients and the number of available satellite images.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
The Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC 2 ) v1.1: an open-source ground-based lidar and radar instrument simulator and subcolumn generator for large-scale models
Abstract. Climate models are essential for our comprehensive understanding of Earth's atmosphere and can provide critical insights on future changes decades ahead. Because of these critical roles, today's climate models are continuously being developed and evaluated using constraining observations and measurements obtained by satellites, airborne, and ground-based instruments. Instrument simulators can provide a bridge between the measured or retrieved quantities and their sampling in models and field observations while considering instrument sensitivity limitations. Here we present the Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2), an open-source ground-based lidar and radar instrument simulator and subcolumn generator, specifically designed for large-scale models, in particular climate models, but also applicable to high-resolution model output. EMC2 provides a flexible framework enabling direct comparison of model output with ground-based observations, including generation of subcolumns that may statistically represent finer model spatial resolutions. In addition, EMC2 emulates ground-based (and air- or space-borne) measurements while remaining faithful to large-scale models' physical assumptions implemented in their cloud or radiation schemes. The simulator uses either single particle or bulk particle size distribution lookup tables, depending on the selected scheme approach, to perform the forward calculations. To facilitate model evaluation, EMC2 also includes three hydrometeor classification methods, namely, radar- and sounding-based cloud and precipitation detection and classification, lidar-based phase classification, and a Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observational Simulator Package (COSP) lidar simulator emulator. The software is written in Python, is easy to use, and can be straightforwardly customized for different models, radars, and lidars. Following the description of the logic, functionality, features, and software structure of EMC2, we present a case study of highly supercooled mixed-phase cloud based on measurements from the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) West Antarctic Radiation Experiment (AWARE). We compare observations with the application of EMC2 to outputs from four configurations of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climate model (ModelE3) in single-column model (SCM) mode and from a large-eddy simulation (LES) model. We show that two of the four ModelE3 configurations can form and maintain highly supercooled precipitating cloud for several hours, consistent with observations and LES. While our focus is on one of these ModelE3 configurations, which performed slightly better in this case study, both of these configurations and the LES results post-processed with EMC2 generally provide reasonable agreement with observed lidar and radar variables. As briefly demonstrated here, EMC2 can provide a lightweight and flexible framework for comparing the results of both large-scale and high-resolution models directly with observations, with relatively little overhead and multiple options for achieving consistency with model microphysical or radiation scheme physics.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
Long-Term Dynamics of Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide in Urban and Rural Regions of China: Urbanization and Policy Impacts
High levels of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) due to human activities pose a serious air pollution issue in China, especially in urban agglomerations. However, limited research has investigated the impact of anthropogenic emissions on higher SO 2 concentrations in urban regions compared to rural areas in China. Here, we analyzed the trends in SO 2 concentrations from 1980 to 2021 in China using the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2) dataset. SO 2 column concentrations from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) and the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) during the years 2007–2021 were also examined for validation and comparison purposes. Eight representative areas, including four urban regions (Pearl River Delta [PRD], Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei [BTH], Yangtze River Delta [YRD], and Sichuan Basin [SCB]) and four rural regions (Northeast Region [NER], Mongolian Region [MR], West Region [WR], and Tibetan Plateau Region [TR]) were selected for the analysis. Overall, a significant but fluctuating increase in SO 2 concentrations over China was observed during 1980–2021. During 1980–1997 and 2000–2010, there was an increase in SO 2 concentration, while during 1997–2000 and 2010–2021, a decreasing trend was observed. The average increase in SO 2 concentration was approximately 16 times higher in urban regions than in the rural background. We also found that SO 2 dynamics were highly associated with expansion of urban areas, population density, and gross domestic product. Nonetheless, since 2007, SO 2 concentrations have exhibited a downward trend, which is mainly attributed to the air pollution policies implemented by the Chinese government. Our findings highlight the need for further studies on the impact of SO 2 on regional climate change in China.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
GeoCarb Calibration Campaign Field Campaign Report
The GeoCarb Calibration Campaign, referred to as the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) calibration campaign within this report for clarity, involved a series of single- and multiple-day Bruker EM27/SUN Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer deployments at the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s Southern Great Plains (SGP) observatory in Oklahoma. The EM27/SUN instruments directly measure infrared solar radiation in a wavelength range from 4000 to 11000 cm -1 at a spectral resolution of 0.5 cm -1 and varied temporal resolution of approximately 15 seconds. The solar radiation observed by these spectrometers contains information about the concentrations of atmospheric constituents present between the instruments and the top of the atmosphere, as every gas and particle in the atmosphere absorbs solar radiation at different wavelengths depending on their physical and chemical makeup. Through retrieval algorithm processing, the solar radiation data collected by EM27/SUN instruments can be used to infer total column dry-air mole fractions, or total column concentrations, of different trace gases present in the atmosphere. These total column concentrations, denoted as Xgas , represent the concentration, in ppb or ppm, of a trace gas in the column of atmosphere between an instrument and the top of the atmosphere. EM27/SUN instruments are primarily used to infer total column concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH 4 ), and water vapor.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Towards Construction of a Novel Nanometer-Resolution MeV-STEM for Imaging Thick Frozen Biological Samples
Driven by life-science applications, a mega-electron-volt Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope (MeV-STEM) has been proposed here to image thick frozen biological samples as a conventional Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) may not be suitable to image samples thicker than 300–500 nm and various volume electron microscopy (EM) techniques either suffering from low resolution, or low speed. The high penetration of inelastic scattering signals of MeV electrons could make the MeV-STEM an appropriate microscope for biological samples as thick as 10 μm or more with a nanoscale resolution, considering the effect of electron energy, beam broadening, and low-dose limit on resolution. The best resolution is inversely related to the sample thickness and changes from 6 nm to 24 nm when the sample thickness increases from 1 μm to 10 μm. To achieve such a resolution in STEM, the imaging electrons must be focused on the specimen with a nm size and an mrad semi-convergence angle. This requires an electron beam emittance of a few picometers, which is ~1000 times smaller than the presently achieved nm emittance, in conjunction with less than 10 -4 energy spread and 1 nA current. We numerically simulated two different approaches that are potentially applicable to build a compact MeV-STEM instrument: (1) DC (Direct Current) gun, aperture, superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) cavities, and STEM column; (2) SRF gun, aperture, SRF cavities, and STEM column. Beam dynamic simulations show promising results, which meet the needs of an MeV-STEM, a few-picometer emittance, less than 10 -4 energy spread, and 0.1–1 nA current from both options. Also, we designed a compact STEM column based on permanent quadrupole quintuplet, not only to demagnify the beam size from 1 μm at the source point to 2 nm at the specimen but also to provide the freedom of changing the magnifications at the specimen and a scanning system to raster the electron beam across the sample with a step size of 2 nm and the repetition rate of 1 MHz. This makes it possible to build a compact MeV-STEM and use it to study thick, large-volume samples in cell biology.
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
Cloud Condensation Nuclei Particle Counter (CCN) Instrument Handbook
The Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter—CCN (Figure 1) is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility instrument for measuring the concentration of aerosol particles that can act as cloud condensation nuclei [1, 2]. The CCN draws the sample aerosol through a column with thermodynamically unstable supersaturated water vapor that can condense onto aerosol particles. Particles that are activated, i.e., grown larger in this process, are counted (and sized) by an Optical Particle Counter (OPC). Thus, activated ambient aerosol particle number concentration as a function of supersaturation is measured. Models CCN-100 and CCN-200 differ only in the number of humidifier columns and related subsystems: CCN-100 has one column and CCN-200 has two columns along with dual flow systems and electronics.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
The NanoSIMS-HR: The Next Generation of High Spatial Resolution Dynamic SIMS
The high lateral resolution and sensitivity of the NanoSIMS 50 and 50L series of dynamic SIMS instruments have enabled numerous scientific advances over the past 25 years. Here, in this study, we report on the NanoSIMS-HR, the first major upgrade to the series, and analytical tests in a suite of sample types, including an aluminum sample containing silicon crystals, microalgae, and plant roots colonized with a symbiotic fungus. Significant improvements have been made in the Cs + ion source, high voltage (HV) control, stage reproducibility, and other aspects of the instrument that affect performance. The modified design of the NanoSIMS-HR thermal-ionization Cs + source enables a 5 pA primary ion beam to be focused into a 100 nm spot, a ~2.5-fold increase compared to Cs + sources on previous instruments (~2 pA at 100 nm). The brightness of the new Cs + source enables an ultimate lateral resolution as high as 30 nm and improved detection limits for a given analysis area. Sample stage movement accuracy is higher than 500 nm, enabling many-fold higher throughput automated analyses. With the new HV control, the primary ion beam impact energy can be reduced from 16 to 2 keV, which enables higher depth resolution during depth profiling (a 2-fold improvement), albeit with a 5-fold decrease in lateral resolution. In the NanoSIMS-HR, the secondary ion column and detection system are identical to those used in the previous series, and the isotopic analysis performance is as precise as in previous NanoSIMS instruments.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Tunable Infrared Laser Absorption Spectroscopy of Aluminum Monoxide $A^2\Pi_i $–$X^2\Sigma^+$.
We report the details of an infrared, laser absorption diagnostic capable of quantifying aluminum monoxide temperature and column density at 100 kHz repetition rate. This novel technique employs a near infrared MEMS-VCSEL to measure rotationally resolved optical absorption spectra of aluminum monoxide $A^2\Pi_i$ - $X^2\Sigma^+$ from approximately 7400 –7900 cm -1 . Temperatures and column densities are extracted from model regressions to provide temporally resolved thermochemical information on aluminum oxidation reactions. The measurement capability is demonstrated by performing 100 kHz measurement in the plume of an exploding bridgewire with measured temperatures of 3450–3100 K and column densities of 1– 11 x 10 16 cm -2 . To the authors knowledge, this is the first use of the AlO $A^2\Pi_i$ - $X^2\Sigma^+$ transition to characterize aluminum combustion environments. Details regarding signal extraction and calibration of MEMS-VCSEL spectra are also included. Although unsuccessful, efforts to extract kinetic temperature and column density from simultaneously measured, atomic aluminum 2 P 3/2,1/2 - 2 S 1/2 transitions at 7618 cm -1 and 7602 cm -1 are also described.
47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
3D Cloud Aerosol Precipitation Experiment at kennaook Cape Grim (3D-CAPE-k) Field Campaign Report
The objective of this campaign was to complement the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility’s Cloud And Precipitation Experiment at kennaook (CAPE-k) in northwest Tasmania by deploying scanning, fixed pointing angle, and in situ aerosol, cloud, and precipitation remote-sensing instruments during the last six months of the experiment. These instruments provided a three-dimensional (3D) context to the second ARM Mobile Facility (AMF2) vertically pointing observations collected at the kennaook Cape Grim (KCG) site and captured a portion of the life cycle of the clouds before and after the passage over the AMF2 vertical column. These 3D cloud measurements will be used in the near future to 1) investigate how the vertical profiles of aerosol and cloud properties are representative of the broader area and how these properties evolve during the portion of the cloud life cycle captured by the scanning instruments, 2) quantify how accurate the cloud fraction derived with assumptions from vertically pointing observations are compared with direct 3D cloud fraction measurements, 3) evaluate cloud fraction and liquid water path in the Australian Community Climate and Earth-System Simulator–Convective-scale (ACCESS-C) forecast model, and 4) evaluate aerosol and cloud products from the European Space Agency/Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (ESA/JAXA) Earth Cloud Aerosol Radiation Explorer (EarthCARE) mission using the scanning measurements, offering more chances of exact collocation, thereby complementing the statistical approach we are planning to employ with AMF2 observations for that same purpose.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Mock data sets for the Eboss and DESI Lyman-α forest surveys
We present a publicly-available code to generate sets of mock Lyman-α (Lyα) forest data that have realistic large-scale correlations including those due to the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAO). The primary purpose of these mocks is to test the analysis procedures of the Extended Baryon Oscillation Survey (eBOSS) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopy Instrument (DESI) surveys. The transmitted flux fraction, F(λ), of background quasars due to Lyα absorption in the intergalactic medium (IGM) is simulated using the Fluctuating Gunn-Petterson Approximation (FGPA) applied to Gaussian random fields produced through the use of fast Fourier transforms (FFT). The output includes the IGM-Lyα transmitted flux fraction along quasar lines of sight and a catalog of high-column-density systems appropriately placed at high-density regions of the IGM. This output serves as input to additional code that superimposes the IGM tranmission on realistic quasar spectra, adds absorption by high-column-density systems and metals, and simulates instrumental transmission and noise. Redshift space distortions (RSD) of the flux correlations are implemented by including the large-scale velocity-gradient field in the FGPA resulting in a correlation function of F(λ) that can be accurately predicted. One hundred realizations have been produced over the 14,000 deg 2 DESI survey footprint with 100 quasars per deg 2 . The analysis of these realizations shows that the correlations of F(λ) follows the prediction within the accuracy of eBOSS survey. Here, the most time-consuming part of the mock production occurs before application of the FGPA, and the existing pre-FGPA forests can be used to easily produce new mock sets with modified redshift-dependent bias parameters or observational conditions.
79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
Machine Learning assisted optimization and parameter space exploration dataset of spin ice Hamiltonian
This repository contains both simulated and experimental structure factor data for the data challenge involving the inverse scattering problem. The simulated data were generated during a machine-learning-assisted optimization routine described in ref[1]. The experimental structure factor was measured on a rare-earth oxide, Dy2Ti2O7 using diffuse neutron scattering from time-of-flight techniques on the CORELLI instrument at the Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. A Metropolis Monte Carlo code implemented to run in a High-performance computing setting was used to calculated simulated structure factors for the spin-ice Hamiltonian at 680 mK, which is the same temperature as for the experimental data. The total size of all the files in this repository is 5.12 GB. A detailed description of the files is given below. ExperimentalData_630mK.dat – A linearized version of 3-dimensional experimental data of size 61×81×21. This data was processed to remove an estimation of non-magnetic background, including nuclear scattering signal and instrumentation background. Parameters.dat – 6700 samples were evaluated over the 4-dimensional parameter space (J_1, J_2, J_3 and J_(3^' )). There is an additional parameter, D in the spin Hamiltonian to mimic the dipolar interaction between magnetic ions. However, this parameter, D was fixed to a value determined by prior work. This file contains five columns for the parameters J_1, J_2, J_3, J_(3^' ) and D respectively. 3D_Simulation_Data.dat – The simulated structure factor, S(Q) data are included in this file. Each raw contains a linearized array of 3D volumes of S(Q) calculated for the parameter set given in the corresponding row of the file Parameters.dat. The size of the volume data was matched to the experimental data. Qx(h,-h,0).dat, Qy(k,k,-2k).dat, Qz(l,l,l).dat – These files contain the h, k, and l values along with the reciprocal vectors [h,-h,0], [k,k,-2k] and [l,l,l] respectively.
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
Dataset 2: A National Dataset on Human Choices in Pooled Rideshare, 2022
Dataset 2: A National Dataset on Human Choices in Pooled Rideshare, 2022. Dataset Description: Pooled Rideshare Acceptance Survey - Phase 2 (2022, N = 2,884). This dataset captures responses from a nationally representative sample of 2,884 adults across the United States to understand choice behaviors between personal and pooled rideshare services. The primary objective of this research is to investigate choice behaviors in rideshare services and provide insights that inform service design, policymaking, and transportation planning, with the aim of encouraging pooled rideshare adoption and enhancing transportation network energy efficiency. Data was collected via an online survey administered through a national panel provider. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 94 years, and representation from all U.S. regions. The survey was designed with a focus on investigating the stated-preference between personal and pooled rideshare services. Each participant responded to 20 stated-preference questions, where they were presented with a hypothesized situation to choose between a personal rideshare option and a pooled rideshare option to complete a trip. The sociodemographic information and attitudes towards factors of pooled rideshare acceptance were also collected to support the comprehensive investigation of participants’ rideshare choice behaviors. - Phase_2_Final - Each row represents an individual respondent, and each column corresponds to a variable such as stated-preference scenario attributes, stated-preference scenario responses, attitudes toward specific service features, and sociodemographic data. The data is available in both .CSV and .SAV formats. - Phase_2_Final_MapFile - The accompanying data dictionary explains all variable labels, response scales, and codes. An .XLSX format of the full survey instrument is included to support interpretation and reuse of the dataset.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Fog particle concentrations
ngVIPS metadata and caveats: Column 1: Time, seconds after midnight UTC of beginning of time period. (60 sec values) Column 2: Relative concentration. Notes: Concentration values are observed values and assume ~4.0 m/s wind speed. (#/cm^3) Caveats: Observed particles with a very few exceptions were on the order of a few pixels (less than 10 microns). The size differential was insufficient to determine a particle size distribution. As the temperatures were relatively warm (and it can be 10C warmer inside the instrument) it is anticipated that some solid ice particles could have melted and some smaller liquid drops could have evaporated. A cyclic nature to the high resolution data was observed and determined to be caused by a focus issue. Each 60 second period included ~25 images. Particles are collected on a glass disk, but the disk isn't perfectly centered causing small particles to be slightly out of focus during part of the rotation. For that reason, we chose to report the average of the five highest values in a time period rather the average of all values. Higher resolution can be made available upon request, but a conversation with the PI would be important to fully understand the planned usage and if the higher resolution data were to be useful for the task. Please contact instrument PI, Carl Schmitt (naturalsystemsresearch@gmail.com) with any questions about these data.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗