the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 26 Sep 2023
First measurements of 3-Dimensional winds up to 25 km based on Aerosol backscatter using a compact Doppler lidar with multiple fields of view
Abstract. We present the first measurements of simultaneous horizontal and vertical winds using a new VAHCOLI lidar system developed at the Leibniz Institute for Atmospheric Physics in Kühlungsborn, Germany (54.12° N, 11.77° E). We describe the technical details of a multi-field-of-view (MFOV) upgrade, which allows to measure wind dynamics in the transition region from microscale to mesoscale (103−104 m). The method was applied at the edge of a developing high-pressure region. Comparisons between the lidar measurements and data from ECMWF show excellent agreement for the horizontal wind components, better than 0.30 ± 0.36 m s−1 along the north beam of the lidar and −0.93 ± 0.73 m s−1 along the south beam. Measurements of vertical wind show significant underestimation of this component by ECMWF. Comparison to ADM-Aeolus shows good agreement, better than −0.12 ± 3.31 m s−1. The capability of the MFOV lidar to explore small-scale asymmetries in the wind field is shown by comparison of the north and south field of view, where we observe a wind asymmetry in the meridional winds, which is also present in ECMWF but underestimated by a factor of approximately four.
-
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
(17538 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(17538 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1924', Michael P. Rennie, 27 Sep 2023
Very interesting paper. However, we at ECMWF would like some clarifications regarding the use of the ECMWF vertical wind component, which is compared to the lidar observations.
Vertical wind is not something we would expect the ECMWF IFS (normal set-up) to capture well, especially in the hydrostatic model that diagnoses it from vertical derivative of the horizontal divergence of the wind field.
Could you confirm how you calculate the vertical wind in [m/s] as we provide it in MARS as omega (so in units of [Pa/s]). Do you use the hydrostatic approximation to say w=-omega/(rho*g)?
And most importantly, do you make sure that you retrieve the full resolution data from MARS at 9 km rather than the truncated field (this is a common mistake by many). For horizontal wind this should not matter too much as it has a lot of power in low wavenumbers, but for the vertical winds this will most likely lead to a severe under-estimation as most of the power is in large wavenumbers that will be ignored by truncation.
Kind regards
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1924-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Dear Michael P. Rennie,
thank you for looking into this, we investigated our retrieval process accordingly to your comment and are very happy to share details. In general we can confirm that w is calculated as you describe.
For a more detailed answer to your questions, together with some resulting changes to the manuscript, please find the file attached.
Kind regards
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1924', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Oct 2023
The authors introduce the first 3D wind measurements up to the stratosphere based on an updated version of their VAHCOLI system. In particular, they extended the system by multiple telescopes that enable the simultaneous measurements of 4 LOS directions (N, S, W, E) as well as the vertical component. They demonstrate the functionality of the system based on an exemplary measurement and comparison to both ECMWF data as well as Aeolus data. The paper is well-structured and clearly understandable. Still, a few important pieces of information to interpret the presented results are missing. Furthermore, a few of the drawn conclusions are questionable. Hence, I recommend accepting the paper for publication in AMT after major revisions based on the comments that are listed below.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Dear Referee #1,
thank you for your comment. We value your contribution and have made changes to the manuscript accordingly. Please find the answers to your questions, together with the list of changes made as a result in the file attached.
Kind regards
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1924', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2023
In the introduction, the importance of wind field measurement, the methods of wind field measurement and the shortcomings of various methods are introduced in detail, which leads to the development progress of coherent lidar. And explains the reasons why spaceborne lidar need to use both Mie and Rayleigh lidar, thus leading to the technical progressiveness of this manuscript. Shows the capable of detecting Mie signals that better than ALADIN.
In line 115, the angle correction methods is very good, effectively avoiding wind field errors caused by angle deviation.
In line 145, ‘For data processing the individual pulse raw dat…’, seems syntax error.
Above 150, eight resolution of 1 m for each individual field of view. What is the width of the laser pulse?
In line 205, obviously, it can be used to correct ECMWF, but the transmission of gravity waves above 11km is only a guess, and a simple wavelet analysis can be done for simple analysis.
In figure 11. The satellite and lidar are several tens of kilometers apart, and this comparison result is still very good, can you explain the reason?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1924-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Dear Referee #2,
thank you for your comment. We value your contribution and have made changes to the manuscript accordingly. Please find the answers to your questions, together with the list of changes made as a result in the file attached.
Kind regards
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1924', Michael P. Rennie, 27 Sep 2023
Very interesting paper. However, we at ECMWF would like some clarifications regarding the use of the ECMWF vertical wind component, which is compared to the lidar observations.
Vertical wind is not something we would expect the ECMWF IFS (normal set-up) to capture well, especially in the hydrostatic model that diagnoses it from vertical derivative of the horizontal divergence of the wind field.
Could you confirm how you calculate the vertical wind in [m/s] as we provide it in MARS as omega (so in units of [Pa/s]). Do you use the hydrostatic approximation to say w=-omega/(rho*g)?
And most importantly, do you make sure that you retrieve the full resolution data from MARS at 9 km rather than the truncated field (this is a common mistake by many). For horizontal wind this should not matter too much as it has a lot of power in low wavenumbers, but for the vertical winds this will most likely lead to a severe under-estimation as most of the power is in large wavenumbers that will be ignored by truncation.
Kind regards
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1924-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Dear Michael P. Rennie,
thank you for looking into this, we investigated our retrieval process accordingly to your comment and are very happy to share details. In general we can confirm that w is calculated as you describe.
For a more detailed answer to your questions, together with some resulting changes to the manuscript, please find the file attached.
Kind regards
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1924', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Oct 2023
The authors introduce the first 3D wind measurements up to the stratosphere based on an updated version of their VAHCOLI system. In particular, they extended the system by multiple telescopes that enable the simultaneous measurements of 4 LOS directions (N, S, W, E) as well as the vertical component. They demonstrate the functionality of the system based on an exemplary measurement and comparison to both ECMWF data as well as Aeolus data. The paper is well-structured and clearly understandable. Still, a few important pieces of information to interpret the presented results are missing. Furthermore, a few of the drawn conclusions are questionable. Hence, I recommend accepting the paper for publication in AMT after major revisions based on the comments that are listed below.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Dear Referee #1,
thank you for your comment. We value your contribution and have made changes to the manuscript accordingly. Please find the answers to your questions, together with the list of changes made as a result in the file attached.
Kind regards
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1924', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2023
In the introduction, the importance of wind field measurement, the methods of wind field measurement and the shortcomings of various methods are introduced in detail, which leads to the development progress of coherent lidar. And explains the reasons why spaceborne lidar need to use both Mie and Rayleigh lidar, thus leading to the technical progressiveness of this manuscript. Shows the capable of detecting Mie signals that better than ALADIN.
In line 115, the angle correction methods is very good, effectively avoiding wind field errors caused by angle deviation.
In line 145, ‘For data processing the individual pulse raw dat…’, seems syntax error.
Above 150, eight resolution of 1 m for each individual field of view. What is the width of the laser pulse?
In line 205, obviously, it can be used to correct ECMWF, but the transmission of gravity waves above 11km is only a guess, and a simple wavelet analysis can be done for simple analysis.
In figure 11. The satellite and lidar are several tens of kilometers apart, and this comparison result is still very good, can you explain the reason?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1924-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Dear Referee #2,
thank you for your comment. We value your contribution and have made changes to the manuscript accordingly. Please find the answers to your questions, together with the list of changes made as a result in the file attached.
Kind regards
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Thorben Mense, 23 Nov 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 296 | 120 | 24 | 440 | 13 | 14 |
- HTML: 296
- PDF: 120
- XML: 24
- Total: 440
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Energy-scaling of a diode-pumped Alexandrite laser and prototype development for a compact general-purpose Doppler lidar A. Munk et al. 10.1364/AO.504567
- Efficient intra-cavity frequency doubled, diode-pumped, Q-switched alexandrite laser directly emitting in the UV S. Scheuer et al. 10.1364/OE.513731
Josef Höffner
Gerd Baumgarten
Ronald Eixmann
Jan Froh
Alsu Mauer
Alexander Munk
Robin Wing
Franz-Josef Lübken
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(17538 KB) - Metadata XML