Site-wide estimates of near-surface lapse rates for monthly maximum temperature averaged 1.20°C, but estimates varied considerably by month, ranging from 0.10 to 1.36°C.
Ryan [ 1972] and Oke et al. [ 2007] suggest that an unstable near-surface lapse rate is a necessary condition that controls dust devil formation.
Near-surface lapse rate is determined by taking the difference between the air temperature at 2 m and the skin temperature as in Ansmann et al. [ 2009].
To estimate the values of w*/ u* and near-surface temperature lapse rates from ECMWF data, grid point values of temperature, wind, boundary layer height h, surface sensible heat flux QH, and u* were used.
Several observational studies show that dust devil and dusty plume (DDP) occurrence significantly depends on the local meteorology, defined using thresholds of near-surface temperature lapse rate [ Ryan, 1972; Oke et al., 2007; Ansmann et al., 2009] and boundary layer scaling parameters [ Deardorff, 1978; Hess and Spillane, 1990; Lyons et al., 2008; Kurgansky et al., 2011].
Climate models, such as PRISM, that are based on temperature measured at 2 m above the ground surface require estimated lapse rates if they are to be used to model ground-surface temperature.
This study explores the effectiveness of recently developed four-dimensional (4D, i.e., 3D space plus time) time-lapse surface ERT to monitor DNAPL source zone remediation.
The quantitative estimation of changes in water saturation (Sw) and effective pressure (P), in terms of changes in compressional and shear impedance, is becoming routine in the interpretations of time-lapse surface seismic data.
Using the time-lapse surface ERT data interpreted in terms of nitrate concentrations, we find that the subsurface nitrate concentration at this site varies as a function of spatial position, episodic heavy rainstorms (versus seasonal and annual fluctuations), and antecedent rainfall history.
The best fit to the inactivation data is at the peak of the blue likelihood surface (λ = −4.15, lapse = 0.048), significantly different from control for λ, but not different from control for lapse.
As levels other than 2 m are used in some of these studies, we estimated the surface to 2 m lapse rate by linear extrapolation.
