Incorporation of aerosols into the COSPv2 satellite lidar simulator for climate model evaluation

Bonazzola, Marine; Chepfer, Hélène; Ma, Po-Lun; Quaas, Johannes; Winker, David M.; Feofilov, Artem; Schutgens, Nick

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438

Preprints

31 Aug 2022

| 31 Aug 2022

Incorporation of aerosols into the COSPv2 satellite lidar simulator for climate model evaluation

Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens

Abstract. Aerosols have a large impact on climate, air quality, and biogeochemical cycles. Their concentrations are highly variable in space and time, and a key variability is in their vertical distribution, because it influences atmospheric heating profiles, aerosols life-time and, as a result, surface concentrations, and because it has an impact on aerosol-cloud interactions. On the side of model-oriented aerosols research, using a lidar aerosol simulator ensures consistent comparisons between the modeled aerosols and the observed aerosols. In the current study, we present the lidar aerosol simulator implemented within the COSPv2 satellite lidar simulator. We estimate the total attenuated backscattered signal (ATB) and the scattering ratios (SR) that would be observed at 532 nm by the lidar CALIOP overflying the atmosphere predicted by the E3SMv1 climate model. The simulator performs the computations at the same vertical resolution as the CALIOP lidar, making use of aerosol optics from the E3SMv1 model as inputs, and assuming that aerosols are uniformly distributed horizontally within each model grid-box. It applies a cloud masking and an aerosol detection threshold, to get the ATB and SR profiles that would be observed above clouds by CALIOP with its actual aerosol detection capability. Our comparison shows that the aerosol distribution simulated at a seasonal timescale is generally in good agreement with observations, with however a discrepancy in the Southern Hemisphere, as the observed SR maximum is not reproduced in simulations there. Comparison between cloud-screened and non cloud-screened computed SRs shows little differences, indicating that the cloud screening by potentially incorrect model clouds does not affect the mean aerosol signal averaged over a season. Consequently, the differences between observed and simulated SR values are not due to sampling errors, and allow to point out some weaknesses in the aerosol representation in models. The use of lidar observations at several wavelengths can give further indication on the nature of the aerosols that need to be improved.

Received: 03 Jun 2022 – Discussion started: 31 Aug 2022

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3004 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (3004 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

27 Feb 2023

Incorporation of aerosol into the COSPv2 satellite lidar simulator for climate model evaluation

Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens

Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1359–1377, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023, 2023

Short summary

Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CEC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-438', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Sep 2022

Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".

https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage.
Also, you cite two repositories we can not accept for data. Neither NASA web servers nor ResearchGate are acceptable, as our policy states, and they are unsuitable for long-term archival. Indeed, ResearchGate (as GitHub) is property of a private company that can terminate the service at any moment without explanations. Therefore, please, move the data to one of the suitable repositories according to our policy.
Please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request could result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-CEC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on CEC1', Marine Bonazzola, 23 Sep 2022
  
  Dear Editor,
  The code has now been transferred to zenodo, with the following DOI : DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7107428
  The two data files (ATB and SR vertical profiles from CALIOP after data processing) have now the DOI : 10.5281/zenodo.7107232 and 10.5281/zenodo.7107162 respectively.
  Concerning the CALIOP lidar level L1.5 data, I think creating a specific DOI is not necessary as these data are of free access on the NASA website. In the section "data avaibility" the reference is given for these data.
  I hope these changes meet your expectations.
  Best regards,
  Marine Bonazzola
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-AC1
  - CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Sep 2022
    
    Dear authors,
    Many thanks for replying to the comment. Publishing the processed data used in the study is enough. However, note that if the L1.5 was necessary, NASA servers would not be trustable. It is a common mistake to think that every renowned institution is trustable for long-term data archival.
    Regards,
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-CEC2
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-438', Duncan Watson-Parris, 03 Oct 2022
The authors present a significant addition to the COSPv2 satellite simulator package to include the simulation of CALIOP aerosol retrievals from model variables. Previous work has shown the importance of considering the detection sensitivity of CALIOP when comparing with modelled aerosol backscatter and extinction and this work provides a neat model-agnostic solution. This is a valuable contribution which has been well validated and I feel is suitable for publication in GMD after some amendments.

My main concerns with the current presentation of the manuscript is that the numbered variable (SR_0, 1, etc) names make reading and following the text very difficult, especially in legends and captions. I would strongly suggest that these are renamed to something more easily understandable such as SR_noclouds, SR_detectable, etc. both in the paper and in the code (if applicable). My second main concern is that I can’t find this code contribution in the COSPv2 codebase linked to in the manuscript. Has this been merged into the code? I would appreciate visibility of the code (the specific files / commit) in order to provide a more detailed review.

The only major scientific comment I have is that I seem to remember the CALIOP aerosol detection threshold depends on the presence of cloud. I.e., if there is thin attenuating cloud aloft, or a thick layer of low cloud this would change the detection threshold. As far as I can see this isn’t accounted for, which is understandable since it may not be easy to quantify (and models won’t suffer from it), but it should be mentioned as a possible source of discrepancy in the combined EXT_3 variable.

While generally well written and structured the introduction is missing some citations and a bit more context (detailed below). Also, the discussion section contains results on the effect of cloud screening, on page 18 through to line 18 on page 21, which should please be moved to the results section (or in an Appendix).

Minor comments

P2L24-25: Please rephrase, perhaps you mean ‘variety of aerosol research questions’.

P2L24-25: Please provide citations rather than a URL.

P2L31-35: Citation needed

P2L35-37: Citation needed

P3L6-8: Citation needed

P3L8: This doesn’t make sense and needs rephrasing

P3L17: Add a full stop after ‘model’ to break up this long sentence?

P3L36: “(from the cloud lidar simulator but not only)” -> (from not only the cloud lidar simulator)

P4 Figure 1 caption: Everything after the first sentence should be in the main text rather than the caption.

P4L18: Please provide citations for the Rayleigh scattering expressions

P5L19: ‘simple’ -> ‘single’

P5L29: Is this every radiation timestep or every model timestep? Please clarify

P5L42: Does this interpolation also work for models on pressure levels?

P7L20: Please place the Figure 1 caption text here.

P7L24: ‘model+aerosol’ -> model and aerosol

P7L43: Citation

P9L4-5: Setting the SR=1 is equivalent to setting the aerosol backscatter to zero which may be a reasonable assumption but should be done carefully – particularly when averaging over large regions of tenuous aerosol (see e.g., Watson-Parris et al. 2018). Please make this assumption explicit in the text.

In addition to using more descriptive variable names (especially in figure titles), please also use the full model name in the figure legends (e.g. Fig. 10)

P22L17: -> …modes has been used interactively for almost two decades…

P23L16: As a co-author, presumably Nick doesn’t need to be acknowledged ï
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-438', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Oct 2022

Bonazzola et al extend the well-known COSP satellite cloud simulator with a package designed to retrieve vertically-resolved aerosol information. This is a natural and valuable addition to COSP, and is likely to find wide uptake.

The study also indicates that accounting for clouds when calculating backscatter ratios isn’t necessary to achieve a good comparison over longer time periods. This is a valuable result in itself, as it suggests even models with poor cloud representation can benefit from using COSP aerosol evaluation.

I have identified no scientific concerns.

Major comments

I can’t find the aerosol-related additions to COSP on git nor on zenodo. Could the authors be more specific about which routines have changed, perhaps even going as far as providing a diff file?

The word ‘aerosol’ is effectively already plural, as it refers to the population of particles and not a single particle. Thus ‘aerosols’ is unnecessary. I suggest correcting throughout the manuscript, but at the same time acknowledge that ‘aerosols’ is becoming widespread.

Readability in many places could be significantly improved with some editing. Many sentences are quite awkward to read and follow.

Minor comments

Abstract, line 4: The clause ‘and because it has an impact on aerosol-cloud interactions’ seems to be out of place. The sentence in its entirety is hard to follow.

Abstract, sentence starting on line 12: ‘It applies…’, please clarify what ‘it’ is.

Abstract, line 15: ‘discrepancy in the Southern Hemisphere’. Is it possible to be more specific? The Southern Hemisphere is half the globe. Perhaps Southern Ocean is what is being referred to?

Page 2, line 5: not all greenhouse gases are long-lived, e.g. ozone. Suggest adding ‘long-lived’ before greenhouse gases

Several of the Figures comparing SR0, SR1 etc: It might be easier for the reader to interpret the plots if they were presented as difference plots, e.g. difference to SR0. As presented, the reader finds themselves looking for subtle changes in color in order to derive value from a figure. Additionally the chosen color palette would present difficulties for anyone with color blindness.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-RC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CEC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-438', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Sep 2022

Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".

https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage.
Also, you cite two repositories we can not accept for data. Neither NASA web servers nor ResearchGate are acceptable, as our policy states, and they are unsuitable for long-term archival. Indeed, ResearchGate (as GitHub) is property of a private company that can terminate the service at any moment without explanations. Therefore, please, move the data to one of the suitable repositories according to our policy.
Please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request could result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-CEC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on CEC1', Marine Bonazzola, 23 Sep 2022
  
  Dear Editor,
  The code has now been transferred to zenodo, with the following DOI : DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7107428
  The two data files (ATB and SR vertical profiles from CALIOP after data processing) have now the DOI : 10.5281/zenodo.7107232 and 10.5281/zenodo.7107162 respectively.
  Concerning the CALIOP lidar level L1.5 data, I think creating a specific DOI is not necessary as these data are of free access on the NASA website. In the section "data avaibility" the reference is given for these data.
  I hope these changes meet your expectations.
  Best regards,
  Marine Bonazzola
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-AC1
  - CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Sep 2022
    
    Dear authors,
    Many thanks for replying to the comment. Publishing the processed data used in the study is enough. However, note that if the L1.5 was necessary, NASA servers would not be trustable. It is a common mistake to think that every renowned institution is trustable for long-term data archival.
    Regards,
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-CEC2
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-438', Duncan Watson-Parris, 03 Oct 2022
The authors present a significant addition to the COSPv2 satellite simulator package to include the simulation of CALIOP aerosol retrievals from model variables. Previous work has shown the importance of considering the detection sensitivity of CALIOP when comparing with modelled aerosol backscatter and extinction and this work provides a neat model-agnostic solution. This is a valuable contribution which has been well validated and I feel is suitable for publication in GMD after some amendments.

My main concerns with the current presentation of the manuscript is that the numbered variable (SR_0, 1, etc) names make reading and following the text very difficult, especially in legends and captions. I would strongly suggest that these are renamed to something more easily understandable such as SR_noclouds, SR_detectable, etc. both in the paper and in the code (if applicable). My second main concern is that I can’t find this code contribution in the COSPv2 codebase linked to in the manuscript. Has this been merged into the code? I would appreciate visibility of the code (the specific files / commit) in order to provide a more detailed review.

The only major scientific comment I have is that I seem to remember the CALIOP aerosol detection threshold depends on the presence of cloud. I.e., if there is thin attenuating cloud aloft, or a thick layer of low cloud this would change the detection threshold. As far as I can see this isn’t accounted for, which is understandable since it may not be easy to quantify (and models won’t suffer from it), but it should be mentioned as a possible source of discrepancy in the combined EXT_3 variable.

While generally well written and structured the introduction is missing some citations and a bit more context (detailed below). Also, the discussion section contains results on the effect of cloud screening, on page 18 through to line 18 on page 21, which should please be moved to the results section (or in an Appendix).

Minor comments

P2L24-25: Please rephrase, perhaps you mean ‘variety of aerosol research questions’.

P2L24-25: Please provide citations rather than a URL.

P2L31-35: Citation needed

P2L35-37: Citation needed

P3L6-8: Citation needed

P3L8: This doesn’t make sense and needs rephrasing

P3L17: Add a full stop after ‘model’ to break up this long sentence?

P3L36: “(from the cloud lidar simulator but not only)” -> (from not only the cloud lidar simulator)

P4 Figure 1 caption: Everything after the first sentence should be in the main text rather than the caption.

P4L18: Please provide citations for the Rayleigh scattering expressions

P5L19: ‘simple’ -> ‘single’

P5L29: Is this every radiation timestep or every model timestep? Please clarify

P5L42: Does this interpolation also work for models on pressure levels?

P7L20: Please place the Figure 1 caption text here.

P7L24: ‘model+aerosol’ -> model and aerosol

P7L43: Citation

P9L4-5: Setting the SR=1 is equivalent to setting the aerosol backscatter to zero which may be a reasonable assumption but should be done carefully – particularly when averaging over large regions of tenuous aerosol (see e.g., Watson-Parris et al. 2018). Please make this assumption explicit in the text.

In addition to using more descriptive variable names (especially in figure titles), please also use the full model name in the figure legends (e.g. Fig. 10)

P22L17: -> …modes has been used interactively for almost two decades…

P23L16: As a co-author, presumably Nick doesn’t need to be acknowledged ï
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-438', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Oct 2022

Bonazzola et al extend the well-known COSP satellite cloud simulator with a package designed to retrieve vertically-resolved aerosol information. This is a natural and valuable addition to COSP, and is likely to find wide uptake.

The study also indicates that accounting for clouds when calculating backscatter ratios isn’t necessary to achieve a good comparison over longer time periods. This is a valuable result in itself, as it suggests even models with poor cloud representation can benefit from using COSP aerosol evaluation.

I have identified no scientific concerns.

Major comments

I can’t find the aerosol-related additions to COSP on git nor on zenodo. Could the authors be more specific about which routines have changed, perhaps even going as far as providing a diff file?

The word ‘aerosol’ is effectively already plural, as it refers to the population of particles and not a single particle. Thus ‘aerosols’ is unnecessary. I suggest correcting throughout the manuscript, but at the same time acknowledge that ‘aerosols’ is becoming widespread.

Readability in many places could be significantly improved with some editing. Many sentences are quite awkward to read and follow.

Minor comments

Abstract, line 4: The clause ‘and because it has an impact on aerosol-cloud interactions’ seems to be out of place. The sentence in its entirety is hard to follow.

Abstract, sentence starting on line 12: ‘It applies…’, please clarify what ‘it’ is.

Abstract, line 15: ‘discrepancy in the Southern Hemisphere’. Is it possible to be more specific? The Southern Hemisphere is half the globe. Perhaps Southern Ocean is what is being referred to?

Page 2, line 5: not all greenhouse gases are long-lived, e.g. ozone. Suggest adding ‘long-lived’ before greenhouse gases

Several of the Figures comparing SR0, SR1 etc: It might be easier for the reader to interpret the plots if they were presented as difference plots, e.g. difference to SR0. As presented, the reader finds themselves looking for subtle changes in color in order to derive value from a figure. Additionally the chosen color palette would present difficulties for anyone with color blindness.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-438-RC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Marine Bonazzola on behalf of the Authors (13 Dec 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Jan 2023) by Graham Mann

Topical Editor review of "Incorporation of aerosols into the COSPv2 satellite
lidar simulator for climatea model evaluation", by Marine Bonazzola et al.

This manuscript describes the incorporation and testing of a "lidar simulator"
module within the CF-MIP Observation Simulation Package (COSP), progressing
the existing COSP concept to additionally enable General Circulation Model
to evaluate simulated aerosol profiles, compared to the extensive information
gathered from satellite-borne lidar measurements such as CALIOP.

Two reviewers have provided reviews on the submitted manuscript, both confirming
the manuscript to be within scope for publication in GMD. The reviewers have
provided a set of minor revisions, mainly aimed at improving the manuscript's
communication of the necessarily quite-complicated specifics of the sampling
and aerosol attenuation calculations that enable a General Circulation Model's
simulated aerosols to be evaluated consistently with that observed from
space-borne lidar.

The authors have replied to each of the reviewer comments, and made appropriate
revisions to the text, and the manuscript is improved as a result, now close to
being ready for publication in GMD.

From reading the track-changes manuscript, I noticed however that there are still
quite a few places where the wording could still be improved, and have provided
below a pre-final list of minor revisions to further sharpen up the text.

The only 1 of these revisions that requires some explanation, is in relation to
the text in the revised manuscipt still tending to refer to "CALIPSO" when it
should refer to "CALIOP". If the text is referring to a satellite orbit, then
it is correct to refer to "CALIPSO", since this is the name of the satellite.
But there are multiple cases where the text refers to "CALIPSO data", when
this should be clear it's the data from the CALIOP lidar instrument, that
being only one of the instruments on the CALIPSO satellite.

The acronym CALIPSO stands for "Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder
Satellite Observation", and in addition to the CALIOP cloud-aerosol lidar,
the CALIPSO satellite also hosts for example an imaging infra-red radiometer
to measure cirrus cloud emissivity and particle size (see for example the
information here https://calipso.cnes.fr/en/CALIPSO/GP_iir.htm).

In my initial Topical Editor review, I corrected some of the instances where
the term CALIPSO was used when CALIOP should have been stated. But it's clear
that the revised manuscript, including in the Observation section (lines 18
to 40 of page 8 of the author track-changes manuscript), the text still refers
to CALIPSO, when it is referring to the CALIOP lidar (on the CALIPSO satellite).

The other minor revisions refer to improving the initial sentences of the
Abstract, some parts of the Introduction and to improve the new Table 1 (page 7
of the ATC-manuscript) the authors added to explain the sub-scripts 1, 2, 3 and 4
in the variable names used in the code, as requested by reviewer 1.

Once the authors have revised the manuscript to address these remaining minor
issues, the manuscript can then proceed to publication in GMD.

Remaining minor revisions
-------------------------

1) Abstract, lines 1 & 2 -- the authors have addressed reviewer 2's request to change
the term "aerosols" instead to "aerosol", but the grammar of the sentence from the
plural "aerosols" now does not read correctly with the change to simply "aerosol".

Whilst reviewer 2 was correct to request this change (avoiding the term "aerosols"),
the sentence should also be adapted to be correct for the new singular word, even
though technically the word "aerosol" can be considered to refer to different types
of aerosol with the aerosol.

To further clarify the issue, my recommended change here is to, for this initial
overarching sentence, add also the word "atmospheric" prior to "aerosol".

I'm also requesting, considering the size distribution of the particles is one aspect
pf the science related to the lidar emulator, to avoid the word "large" in this
context of the magnitude of the impacts on climate, suggesting to refer instead
to "substantial impacts".

The requested change then, is to replace the current text "Aerosol have a large impact
on climate, air quality and biogeochemical cycles" instead with "The atmospheric
aerosol has substantial impacts on climate, air quality and biogeochemical cycles".

I am also suggesting to make the current very short 2nd sentence instead be a
continuation of this short first sentence, changing ". Their concentrations are..."
instead to ", and its concentrations are...".

With both of those changes, the recommendation is to make the first sentence of the
Abstract be, "The atmospheric aerosol has substantial impacts on climate, air quality
and biogeochemical cycles, and its concentrations are highly variable in space and time."

2) Abstract lines 2 to 3 -- using a possessive determiner such as "their" is not really
appropriate in this formal scientific context, particularly in these initial sentences
of the Abstract. In changing the wording, I'm requesting to make this 2nd sentence
start to refer to the simulation of aerosol in models, this being the main application
within the manuscript's topic.

Request to change

"A key variability is in their vertical distribution, because it influences..."

instead to

"A key variability to evaluate within models that simulate aerosol is the
vertical distribution, this influencing..."

3) Abstract, lines 3 to 4 -- the text correctly points out the vertical distribution
influences atmopsheric heating profiles and aerosol-cloud interactions, but continuing
also to "aerosol lifetime" is not correct with that sentence construction. The sentence
then refers to the vertical profile having an influence on aerosol lifetime, but it's
rather that the vertical profile is indicative of a particular aerosol lifetime.
I'd also advise to use the term "residence time" rather than "lifetime".

The end of this sentence also needs re-wording because the "as a result" is not quite
correct either, since aerosol concentations at the surface are probably less affected
by residence time than those aloft -- so the surface concentrations are not really the
correct aspect to refer to in relation to changes in aerosol lifetime/residence-time.

My suggestion here is to have the text refer to changes in the lifetime affecting the
strength of the effects referred to in the 1st sentence.

And the specific suggested re-wording is then to change

", aerosol-cloud interactions, aerosol lifetime and, as a result, surface concentrations"

instead to

"and aerosol-cloud interactions, to help constrain aerosol residence time, to better
represent the magnitude of simulated impacts."

4) Introduction, page 2 lines 36 to 39 -- I do not understand why the authors have chosen
to talk about these specifics for configuring a general circulation model: nudging,
fixed sea-surface temperatures or interactive ocean. Firstly the nudging capability
within a model does not preclude it from having fixed sea-surface temperatures, so
the text is not quite right where it refers to these as different configurations.
Secondly, and most importantly, this referring to these different configurations of a
general circulation model is irrelevant to the description of the lidar emulator described
in the manuscript, and including this only serves to divert the focus of the reader.

Including some discussion on page 3 from lines 1 to 9 is OK, but constructing these
in this way suggests they are alternative configurations, which is not the case,
(tha nudging to re-analysis can be applied whether the model is using fixed SST or
coupled to an interactive ocean).

Having this single-sentence paragraph on lines 36 to 39 will also seem strange when the
accepted manuscript is type-set, and my suggestion here is to delete the text on
lines 37-39 of page 2 of the revised manuscript. And instead have the re-worded sentence
be the 1st sentence of the next paragraph, i.e. join up with the text on line 41.

Referring to "the closer bridge between observations and models" I'm suggesting should
instead have the re-worded sentence refer to the observational constraints the
satellite lidar measurements provide.

Specfically, I suggest to re-word the current sentence starting on line 36 instead to
"These studies point to the potential for satellite lidars to provide important
constraints for the aerosol distributions in climate models, of benefit to a range
of different configurations."

5) Introduction, page 2 line 41 -- with the lines 36-39 reworded to the shorter
sentence above, and now referring to constraints, delete "the constraints of"
from this sentence, changing the start of the sentence from "First, the constraints
of 15 years of ..." instead to "The 15-year record of..."
Further to my general comments above, it's important to be clear here that CALIOP is the
name of the lidar, and CALIPSO is the name of the satellite.
And with that re-wording, insert "the space-borne CALIOP lidar on" after "15-year record of",
and insert "satellite" after "Satellite Obervations (CALIPSO)".
The current sentence is already a bit too long, and then with making the wording clarify
this common misunderstanding of CALIPSO being the name of the lidar, the suggested
re-wording is to split this into 2 sentences, the first reading:

"There is now a 15-year record of the space-borne CALIOP lidar on the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar
and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) satellite (2016-2020)."

The second sentence can then refer to the utility of this re: the evaluating transport
and removal processes in models, changing the wording then to continue after that, as:

"In evaluating the simulated vertical aerosol distribution, these measurements can provide
important observational constraints to improve transport and removal processes in models."

And then change ", when those observations are.." instead to re-start another new sentence,
adding "satellite lidar" there -- i.e. "When the satellite lidar observations are..."

6) Introduction, page 3, line 33 -- Change the "within the COSPv2 to leverage.."
instead to "within the COSPv2 software package to leverage.." and change to past tense
(since that is already done) -- then "We choose to implement" instead written as
"We have chosen to implement...." -- it's just easier for the reader to appreciate
what the sentence is aiming to communicate there.

7) Section 2.1, line 9 -- the justification here of the text is incorrect, please
correct this so that it does not stretch the text to the end of the line.

8) Section 2.1, lines 21-22 -- change "which determines the refractive index of
the medium" instead to "the latter determining its refractive index."

9) Section 2.1, lines 12-14 -- This sentence needs to be clearer here, please re-word
the current "The optical properties computed by the GCM can be directly the extinction
and 180o backscatter..." instead to "The aerosol optical properties computed in GCMs
varies, with some models having diagnostics for single-wavelength extinction and
180o backscatter...".

Suggest to have this sentence continue to the key difference, that some models don't
calculate these -- calculating only the waveband-integrated optical properties
(extinction, absorption and phase function). Note that the current text refers to
both "absorption" and "single-scattering albedo" but those are just different measures
of essentially the same property.

In summary, the correction is to change the current sentence

"The aerosol optics diagnostics in GCMs vary, with some models computing
single-wavelength extinction and 180o backscatter, whilst others
calculate only the waveband-integrated aerosol optical properties
(i.e. extinction, absorption and phase function).

With that re-wording the existing wording " which can be used to compute the ATB"
can be deleted.

10) Section 2.2, page 5, lines 17-19 -- Replace "at a given wavelength:" with "monochromatically
(i.e. at specific wavelengths):" and replace ", which are typical outputs" instead
with ", these being standard wavelengths". On lines 21, also change "may also" to
"could also", and delete "inputs for".

11) Section 2.2, page 5, lines 23-24 -- I do not understand why this sentence
has been added here. Is this sentence referring to an example in the code?

In my opinion this is not so relevant to the GMD article, and I would actually
suggest to delete this sentence altogether. Or if this is referring to the
data shown in the Figure, please integrate "shown in Figure 2" or similar
into the sentence.

12) Page 7, Table 1 -- There needs to be text added to an upper row of the Table
to explain what is shown in each of the columns in the Table.

For example in the far-left column in new upper row, the text needs to state
"Variable sub-script in article" or similar, with the 2nd-from-the-left
stating "Description of variable" or similar. These 2 labels could be added
in the existing upper row (in the far-left and 2nd-from-left boxes that
are currently blank). But there does need to be a new upper-row added
at the top of the Table, and suggest to have a banner stretching across
the 3 right-hand columns stating "Name of variable in code", or if there
is space (which there should be, with stretching across those 3 columns)
"Name of variable in lidar simulator code".

Please change "Correspondence between.." instead to "Translations between.."
and also correct the typo in the caption to the Table, at the far-right
end of the 1st line (change "FOr" (or is it "F0r"?) instead to "For").

13) Page 8 -- this is where I found several instances of "CALIPSO" that
should be stated as "CALIOP" when referring to the measurements, or
to the instrument.

13.1) Page 8, line 4, change "CALIPSO" to "CALIOP"

13.2) Page 8, line 7, change "CALIPSO" to "CALIOP"

13.3) Page 8, line 22, change "CALIPSO" to "CALIOP"

13.4) Page 8, line 23, change "CALIPSO" to "CALIOP"

13.5) Page 8, line 26, change "CALIPSO" to "CALIOP"

13.6) Page 8, line 28, change the two instances of "CALIPSO" both to "CALIOP"

14) Page 8, line 35, change "As each" to "Since each"

15) Page 8, line 39, change "simulations, to identify" to "simulations, then able to detect".

16) Page 9, lines 1-6 -- the new text added here is not clear enough re: this gridded
data product -- this is an "example gridded data product", right?

16.1) Page 16, line 1 -- change "a gridded" to "an example gridded"

16.2) Page 16, line 1 -- add a comma after "consisitent with the GCM grid"

16.3) Page 16, line 2 -- change "the model and the simulator results can" instead to
"the translation from the model to the simulator results can"

16.4) Page 16, line 2 -- change "be evaluated against the observational data" instead to
"be more easily understood by the reader, in relation to how it can affect the
interpretation of an comparison to the CALIOP observation profile".

Hide

AR by Marine Bonazzola on behalf of the Authors (25 Jan 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (25 Jan 2023) by Graham Mann

AR by Marine Bonazzola on behalf of the Authors (03 Feb 2023) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

27 Feb 2023

Incorporation of aerosol into the COSPv2 satellite lidar simulator for climate model evaluation

Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens

Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1359–1377, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1359-2023, 2023

Short summary

Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens

Data sets

CALIOP lidar level L1.5 profiles NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center DAAC https://doi.org/10.5067/CALIOP/CALIPSO/LID_L15-STANDARD-V1-00

CALIOP SR profiles Marine Bonazzola https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32924.97929

CALIOP ATB profiles Marine Bonazzola https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27891.81442

Model code and software

COSPv2 simulator Rodrigo Guzman, Hélène Chepfer https://github.com/CFMIP/COSPv2.0

Marine Bonazzola, Hélène Chepfer, Po-Lun Ma, Johannes Quaas, David M. Winker, Artem Feofilov, and Nick Schutgens

Viewed

Total article views: 628 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
497	116	15	628	4	2

HTML: 497
PDF: 116
XML: 15
Total: 628
BibTeX: 4
EndNote: 2

Views and downloads (calculated since 31 Aug 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2022	45	11	2	58
Sep 2022	150	35	9	194
Oct 2022	111	28	4	143
Nov 2022	52	13	0	65
Dec 2022	40	4	0	44
Jan 2023	43	9	0	52
Feb 2023	56	16	0	72
Mar 2023	0
Apr 2023	0
May 2023	0
Jun 2023	0
Jul 2023	0
Aug 2023	0
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 31 Aug 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2022	45	11	2	58
Sep 2022	150	35	9	194
Oct 2022	111	28	4	143
Nov 2022	52	13	0	65
Dec 2022	40	4	0	44
Jan 2023	43	9	0	52
Feb 2023	56	16	0	72
Mar 2023	0
Apr 2023	0
May 2023	0
Jun 2023	0
Jul 2023	0
Aug 2023	0
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 605 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 605 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 04 Sep 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3004 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Aerosols have a large impact on climate. Using a lidar aerosol simulator ensures consistent comparisons between modeled and observed aerosols. In the current study, we present a lidar aerosol simulator that applies a cloud masking and an aerosol detection threshold. We estimate the lidar signals that would be observed at 532 nm by the lidar CALIOP overflying the atmosphere predicted by a climate model. Our comparison at the seasonal timescale shows a discrepancy in the Southern Hemisphere.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0