the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Closing the Gap: An Algorithmic Approach to Reconciling In-Situ and Remotely Sensed Aerosol Particle Properties
Abstract. Remote sensors such as lidars and polarimeters are increasingly being used to understand atmospheric aerosol particles and their role in critical cloud and marine boundary layer processes. Therefore, it is essential to ensure these instruments' retrievals of aerosol optical and microphysical properties are consistent with measurements taken by in-situ instruments (i.e., external closure). However, achieving rigorous external closure is challenging because in-situ instruments often 1) provide dry (relative humidity (RH) < 40 %) aerosol measurements while remote sensors typically provide retrievals in ambient conditions and 2) only sample a limited aerosol particle size range due to aircraft sampling inlet cutoffs. To address these challenges, we introduce the e In Situ Aerosol Retrieval Algorithm (ISARA) in the form of a Python toolkit that converts dry in-situ aerosol data into ambient, humidified data and accounts for the contribution of coarse-mode aerosol particles in its retrievals. We apply ISARA to the NASA Aerosol Cloud meTeorology Interactions oVer the western ATlantic Experiment (ACTIVATE) field campaign data set to perform a preliminary consistency analysis of this campaign's aerosol measurements. Specifically, we compare ISARA-calculated ambient aerosol properties with corresponding measurements from 1) ACTIVATE's in-situ instruments (i.e., internal consistency), 2) Monte Carlo in-situ data simulations (i.e., synthetic consistency), and 3) ACTIVATE's Second Generation High Spectral Resolution Lidar (HSRL-2) and Research Scanning Polarimeter (RSP) instruments (i.e., external consistency). This study demonstrates that 1) appropriate a priori assumptions for aerosol particles lead to consistency between in-situ measurements and remote sensing retrievals in the ACTIVATE campaign, 2) ambient aerosol properties retrieved from dry in-situ and the RSP polarimetric data are shown to be consistent for the first time in literature, 3) measurements are externally consistent even when moderately absorbing (imaginary refractive index (IRI) > 0.015) aerosol is present, and 4) ISARA is limited by probable under-sampling of coarse-mode particles in its calculations. The overall success of this preliminary consistency analysis shows that ISARA can enable systematic, streamlined closure of field campaign aircraft aerosol data sets at large.
- Preprint
(5668 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3088', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Feb 2025
reply
Overall Notes
This paper introduces a python tool aimed at associating in situ aerosol measurements obtained during aircraft field campaigns with remote sensing aerosol retrievals, by addressing the need to compensate for the limited coarse-mode throughput of aircraft inlets and to hydrate in situ samples when comparing with ambient (remote sensing) observations.
As these calculations must be made if in situ field data are to be used to validate remote sensing retrievals quantitatively, the algorithm presented here represents a useful tool for such applications. The observations used to test this approach were acquired during the ACTIVATE field campaign, and the scope of the present study is limited to fine-mode sulfate and organic aerosol, and a coarse mode taken as sea salt. They impose assumptions that limit considerably the applicability of the current implementation – constant refractive indices over the spectral range, spherical particles, parameter assumptions required to calculate the hydrated CRI, etc. However, these are stated clearly, which is as much as one can ask in an AMT paper. The remote sensing data were obtained from the HSRL-2 and RSP aircraft instruments, which avoids some of the sampling differences that arise when in situ measurements are compared with spacecraft measurements. As such, the approach seems most applicable for validating aircraft field measurements.
In summary, the paper develops a useful tool and presents a thorough analysis of its performance. For general application, there are significant limitations in the assumptions made, but given that the analysis is circumscribed to a narrow set of relatively favorable conditions, I think this is acceptable for publication in AMT, perhaps with minor modifications as suggested below.
A Few More Specific Notes
Line 244. It might be useful to mention how far the aircraft travels in 45 seconds, to provide a sense for the horizontal resolution of the SMPS and other, aggregated measurements.
Line 270. Might be worth noting that remote sensing is more sensitive to volume than number concentration specifically for particles smaller than the observing wavelength. For particles larger than the observing wavelength, sensitivity is greater to particle cross-sectional area.
Line 454. Comparing Fig. 1 with Fig. 5, and taking the y-axis scales into account, I would say “… overall, much less variance.”
Line 469. As this is synthetic data, doesn’t the statement here just mean that the numerical coding was done correctly? Not a bad thing to mention, but the statement here makes the observation sound more fundamental.
Line 494. A word seems to be missing from this sentence.
Lines 498-500. By way of explanation, wouldn’t the 700 nm channel likely be the most sensitive to coarse-mode particles, for which many of the assumptions might be less applicable?
Section 3.1.3. Just wondering how representative of the entire column the in situ data sampling might be. I realize the HSRL-2 data are height-resolved, which can help assess the vertical heterogeneity compared to the in situ sampling.
Figure 10. There appears to be a lot of scatter in the data, which the text does not seem to acknowledge. This is probably not surprising – in addition to the limitations discussed in the paragraph about this figure, given the likely horizontal and vertical variability in particle concentration combined with differences in sampling.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3088-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
246 | 55 | 59 | 360 | 12 | 8 |
- HTML: 246
- PDF: 55
- XML: 59
- Total: 360
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1