the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Aeolus Lidar Surface Returns (LSR) at 355 nm as a new Aeolus L2A Phase-F product
Abstract. The Atmospheric Laser Doppler Instrument (ALADIN) onboard Aeolus was the first spaceborne high-resolution lidar, measuring vertical profiles of aerosol optical properties at 355 nm at an incidence angle of ~ 35°. Although Aeolus had been primarily developed to provide vertical profiles of wind speed, aerosols, and cloud products, its lidar surface returns (LSR) were shown to contain useful information about UV surface reflectivity and agreed well with passive remote sensing reflectance. Within the process to incorporate the LSR algorithm into the Aeolus Level 2A product during the post-commissioning phase of Aeolus, we describe the methodology and evaluate the results of the adopted LSR retrieval. The algorithm combines attenuated backscattering parameters (L2 AEL-PRO data) with the information on the surface bin detection (L1 data) to produce attenuated LSR estimates (e.g. surface integrated attenuated backscatter) for all bins where the ground was detected. The correction for producing final LSR estimates at the original Aeolus resolution is performed using the Aeolus L2 retrievals, namely Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and Rayleigh Optical Depth to ensure that LSR is free from effects of atmospheric attenuative features such as optically thick clouds and thick aerosol conditions (AOD > 1.0). The evaluation shows that Aeolus LSR estimates produced from this approach agreed well with the UV Lambertian-Equivalent Reflectivity (LER) from GOME-2 (LERG) and TROPOMI (LERT) climatologies at all spatial scales. For four reference orbits (September 10, 2018; November 30, 2018; January 11, 2019; and May 1, 2019), all cloud and aerosol-free LSR estimates agree well with both LER references with correlation coefficients (r) varying from 0.55 to 0.71. For monthly scales, the agreement was moderate-to-high for LSR-LERT (r = 0.61 – 0.77 depending on the month) and was weak-to-moderate for LSR-LERG comparison (r = 0.44 – 0.64). Globally, the averaged 2.5 × 2.5° LSR estimates exhibit very high agreement with both LERG (0.90) and LERT (0.92) references. In reproducing regional monthly dynamics LSR and LER agree very well in snow/ice-covered regions (r > 0.90), semi-arid regions (r > 0.90), arid regions (r > 0.70), and only some regions with mixed vegetation like Australia (r = 0.94), while no agreement was found for ocean regions due to the Aeolus optical setup, favourable for ocean subsurface, not direct surface backscatter probing. We unveiled four reflectivity clusters of LSR at 2.5 × 2.5 degree grids, manifesting a transition from white to darker surfaces in descending LSR magnitude order: ice, snow, surface without snow, and water. Regionally, the LSR-LER agreement can vary and yields the highest correlation values in regions where snow is present in winter. This pattern is explained by the very good sensitivity of LSR to modelled snow cover we demonstrated (r = 0.62 – 0.74 between these parameters in such regions), while sensitivity to purely vegetation-driven changes of surface is lower, as indicated by the comparison between LSR and NDVI without snow (r < 0.30 in the regional analysis). Overall, our work complemented existing LSR studies that were mostly focused on nadir-looking CALIPSO cases by demonstrating the usability of LSR for scientific applications at non-nadir angles. By taking together CALIPSO and Aeolus experiences, a framework on effective LSR utilization using future lidar missions such as EarthCARE and Aeolus-2 can be effectively designed.
-
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
(3146 KB)
-
Supplement
(1096 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3146 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1096 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1926', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2024
This manuscript presents the detailed Aeolus lidar surface return (LSR) calculation algorithm and provide some meaningful results/conclusions. The outcomes of this study will surely support the researchers in investigating the radiative transfer, reflectivity and thus guard the further spaceborne lidars missions. The manuscript is of high quality and scientific interest. The benefits of this study would be great for the enriching of Aeolus data products. Hence, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript after the necessary revisions.
The general comments are listed below:
- The methodology in this manuscript should be well-constructed, it should work fine in this study. My main concern is the framework of this manuscript, regarding the sequence of the section 3.1 and section 3.2. Normally, one should firstly verify the method proposed in this paper before the statistical analysis. I mean, probably authors may think about describing section 3.2 before section 3.1.
- For the sections of “Discussion” and “Conclusion”, I propose the authors to reorganize these two parts. Some information in Discussion part should be moved to the “Conclusion” part. In current manuscript, the conclusion somehow looks like outlook.
The technical corrections:
- The symbols of variables in the article should be consistent. For example, qflag(sometimes quality flag)/LERG(sometimes LERG)/LSR(sometimes lsr)/ODray(sometimes RayOD). Please make them consistent.
- Line 317: why 1-sigma but not 3-sigma is selected? Is 1-sigma too strict for the calculation?
- Figure 3: red frame: qflag>0, but the QF in the attenuated case with number 1 is 0. Please check it.
- Figure 4: I cannot see the histogram distributions with magenta color. In the text, of course you explain only a few numbers of strong return remain, therefore please find another way to show the distributions of water reflectivity between -35 and 35.
- Actually, the authors should reproduce all the figures in this manuscript. They are hard to be recognized, especially for the legends/values.
- Figure 10: Is it necessary to use log scale for LSR?
- Figure 13: Why only “LER snow TROPOMI” and “LER CLEAR GOME-2” are compared? The authors should also explain why LER with other features are not compared.
- Figure 14: which y-label is designed for TROPOMI? Is the y-label of "GOME-2 LSR" shared for TROPOMI and GOME-2? Please make it clear.
- Line 680: How the values of snow cover (SNW_1) are calculated? Is it a proportion?
- Figure 17: please recheck this figure. The titles (month information) of the graph in the first row have been obscured and are not displayed entirely.
- Line 738: Discussion should be listed as section 4.
- Line 809: Conclusions should be listed as section 5.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1926-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Lev Labzovskii, 06 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1926', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Aug 2024
This manuscript is a relevant piece of work paving the way for an effective design and usage of LSR in future lidar missions. It contributes to the expansion of the database for the research field of surface reflection properties from only passive to also active instruments. The results on the excellent sensitivity of Aeolus LSR's to white surfaces (snow and ice) are very promising for future studies. The manuscript addresses relevant scientific questions and presents a novel concept and data resulting in substantial and reasonable conclusions. The objectives of the paper are well described at the end of chapter 1. The method is described to a sufficient extent, so that reproduction by fellow scientists seems feasible. The structure of the overall presentation is reasonable, but the language might need some revision in certain paragraphs. Own new contributions are indicated and proper credit to related work is provided including a good number of references of high quality. The amount and quality of the supplementary material seems appropriate.
I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript after the necessary revisions. Specific minor comments and unfortunately a large number of technical corrections are suggested below.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Lev Labzovskii, 06 Sep 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1926', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2024
This manuscript presents the detailed Aeolus lidar surface return (LSR) calculation algorithm and provide some meaningful results/conclusions. The outcomes of this study will surely support the researchers in investigating the radiative transfer, reflectivity and thus guard the further spaceborne lidars missions. The manuscript is of high quality and scientific interest. The benefits of this study would be great for the enriching of Aeolus data products. Hence, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript after the necessary revisions.
The general comments are listed below:
- The methodology in this manuscript should be well-constructed, it should work fine in this study. My main concern is the framework of this manuscript, regarding the sequence of the section 3.1 and section 3.2. Normally, one should firstly verify the method proposed in this paper before the statistical analysis. I mean, probably authors may think about describing section 3.2 before section 3.1.
- For the sections of “Discussion” and “Conclusion”, I propose the authors to reorganize these two parts. Some information in Discussion part should be moved to the “Conclusion” part. In current manuscript, the conclusion somehow looks like outlook.
The technical corrections:
- The symbols of variables in the article should be consistent. For example, qflag(sometimes quality flag)/LERG(sometimes LERG)/LSR(sometimes lsr)/ODray(sometimes RayOD). Please make them consistent.
- Line 317: why 1-sigma but not 3-sigma is selected? Is 1-sigma too strict for the calculation?
- Figure 3: red frame: qflag>0, but the QF in the attenuated case with number 1 is 0. Please check it.
- Figure 4: I cannot see the histogram distributions with magenta color. In the text, of course you explain only a few numbers of strong return remain, therefore please find another way to show the distributions of water reflectivity between -35 and 35.
- Actually, the authors should reproduce all the figures in this manuscript. They are hard to be recognized, especially for the legends/values.
- Figure 10: Is it necessary to use log scale for LSR?
- Figure 13: Why only “LER snow TROPOMI” and “LER CLEAR GOME-2” are compared? The authors should also explain why LER with other features are not compared.
- Figure 14: which y-label is designed for TROPOMI? Is the y-label of "GOME-2 LSR" shared for TROPOMI and GOME-2? Please make it clear.
- Line 680: How the values of snow cover (SNW_1) are calculated? Is it a proportion?
- Figure 17: please recheck this figure. The titles (month information) of the graph in the first row have been obscured and are not displayed entirely.
- Line 738: Discussion should be listed as section 4.
- Line 809: Conclusions should be listed as section 5.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1926-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Lev Labzovskii, 06 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1926', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Aug 2024
This manuscript is a relevant piece of work paving the way for an effective design and usage of LSR in future lidar missions. It contributes to the expansion of the database for the research field of surface reflection properties from only passive to also active instruments. The results on the excellent sensitivity of Aeolus LSR's to white surfaces (snow and ice) are very promising for future studies. The manuscript addresses relevant scientific questions and presents a novel concept and data resulting in substantial and reasonable conclusions. The objectives of the paper are well described at the end of chapter 1. The method is described to a sufficient extent, so that reproduction by fellow scientists seems feasible. The structure of the overall presentation is reasonable, but the language might need some revision in certain paragraphs. Own new contributions are indicated and proper credit to related work is provided including a good number of references of high quality. The amount and quality of the supplementary material seems appropriate.
I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript after the necessary revisions. Specific minor comments and unfortunately a large number of technical corrections are suggested below.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Lev Labzovskii, 06 Sep 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
208 | 70 | 61 | 339 | 27 | 10 | 12 |
- HTML: 208
- PDF: 70
- XML: 61
- Total: 339
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Lev D. Labzovskii
Gerd-Jan van Zadelhoff
David P. Donovan
Jos de Kloe
L. Gijsbert Tilstra
Ad Stoffelen
Damien Josset
Piet Stammes
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3146 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1096 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper