the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Validation of the Aeolus L2A products with the eVe reference lidar measurements from the ASKOS/JATAC campaign
Abstract. Aeolus was an ESA Earth Explorer satellite mission launched in 2018 with a lifetime of almost five years. The mission carried the Atmospheric Laser Doppler Instrument (ALADIN), a doppler wind lidar for providing wind profiles in global scale and also vertically resolved optical properties of particles (aerosols and clouds) using the high spectral resolution lidar technique. To validate the particles’ optical properties obtained from Aeolus as Level 2A products, the eVe lidar, ESA’s reference system for the calibration and validation of Aeolus mission, has been deployed at the ASKOS campaign in the framework of the Joint Aeolus Tropical Atlantic Campaign (JATAC). ASKOS is the ground-based component of JATAC where ground-based remote sensing and in-situ instrumentation for aerosols, clouds, winds and radiation observations has been deployed at Cado Verde during summer 2021 and 2022 for the validation of the Aeolus products. The eVe lidar is a combined linear/circular polarization and Raman lidar specifically designed to mimic the operation of Aeolus and provide ground-based reference measurements of the optical properties for aerosols and thin clouds for the validation of the Aeolus L2A products while taking into consideration the ALADIN’s limitation of misdetection of the cross-polar component of the backscattered signal. As such, in the validation study the Aeolus L2A profiles obtained from the Standard Correct Algorithm (SCA), the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), and the AEL–PRO algorithms of Baseline 16 and free from the cloud contaminated bins are compared against the corresponding cloud-free Aeolus like profiles from eVe lidar, which are harmonized to the Aeolus L2A profiles, using the 14 collocated measurements between eVe and Aeolus during the nearest Aeolus overpass from the ASKOS site. The validation results reveal good performance for the co-polar particle backscatter coefficient being the most accurate L2A product from Aeolus with overall errors up to 2 Mm-1sr-1, followed by the noisier particle extinction coefficient with overall errors up to 183 Mm-1, and the co-polar lidar ratio which is the noisiest L2A product with extreme error values and variability. The observed discrepancies between eVe and Aeolus L2A profiles increase at lower altitudes where higher atmospheric loads, which lead to increased noise levels in the Aeolus retrievals due to enhanced laser beam attenuation, and greater atmospheric variability (e.g. PBL inhomogeneities) are typically encountered. Overall, this study underlines the strengths of the optimal estimation algorithms (MLE and AEL–PRO) with consistent performance and reduced discrepancies, while the standard inversion algorithm (SCA), which was originally developed, could be further improved particularly in the retrieval of the particle extinction coefficient and lidar ratio. In addition, the SCA–Mid bin resolution profiles outperform the corresponding SCA–Rayleigh bin as expected, since Mid bin resolution is obtained when averaging the values from two consecutive SCA–Rayleigh height bins.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
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.- Preprint
(2910 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1152', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 May 2025
reply
The manuscript by Paschou et al. provides a detailed insight into the validation of Aeolus spin-off concerning aerosol optical properties products (4 different products algorithms). For this purpose, a dedicated ground-based reference instrument was operated on the Cabo Verdean islands in the tropical Atlantic. The authors could accomplish 14 direct overpasses, which is remarkable given the repeat cycle of 7-days and the remote location. The authors discuss in detail one case study and perform a statistical analysis, for which they retrieve statistical metrics even though the data set is sparse with 14 overpasses and thus not fully significant for the overall Aeolus performance in terms of region, time, and aerosol conditions.
Nevertheless, it is the optimum approach given the data set and valuable for the community. Furthermore, they investigate their findings for additional boundary conditions like the overlaying optical depth and scattering ratio which is indeed of great interest. For this reason, the paper is in general well suited for AMT and this special issue. Nevertheless, I propose minor revision as I have some general comments which should be considered and a lot of minor, technical comments in the attached pdf.
General comments:
- Despite the great observations and general results, the publication lacks in my opinion a proper discussion of the results. The current manuscript stays mostly on reporting numbers of the comparison which is not appropriate for a reader not being a validation expert. At least an attempt should be made to contextualize the results in a broader view.
For example, please try to conclude, based on your analysis, which of the 4 algorithms is performing best. If none can be identified, and each has its pros and cons, this is also a conclusion. Also, if there is one algorithm you cannot recommend for specific aerosol studies. Basically, you operated the only one system measuring the same properties like Aeolus in the same viewing angle and thus you are allowed to make clear statements even though, of course, such statements might not be valid globally, for all baselines, and all Aeolus lifetime.
- In this context, the conclusion really needs to be overworked. Currently it is just a summary or repetition of the chapter above but not concluding. Please only highlight in the conclusion the important findings in a short and concise way and discuss them wrt the performance of Aeolus so that one can draw conclusions easily. Currently only the very last passage is a real conclusion.
- As stated, for the reader it would be beneficial to get some interpretation of the results guiding towards the performance of Aeolus. I know it is difficult and it might be only valid for the Cabo Verde Island areas, but still worth to state something like, based on our statistical analysis, studies of the dust layer can be performed using the xx algorithm when interested in layer heights but algorithms yyy seems to be more suited for the study of optical properties.
- I am not happy about the frequent and multiple use of the word “bias” which is partly incorrect. If you have a deviation of the retrieved values for a case study, you cannot claim it as a bias already. In fact, you could only claim a deviation when considering the uncertainty of both systems. A bias itself can only be provided, if you have a sufficient statistical analysis. Please correct this throughout the manuscript.
- I am really puzzled by the fact that you report no bias for the lidar ratio in cases with high atmospheric load (OOD 0.73 – 1.19 and scattering ratio 1.27 – 1.9). Either, the result is completely not statically relevant due the large uncertainty in bsc and ext as reported just before and just a coincidence. In this case you should leave the statement out. Or it is the fact that it is an intensive property, and thus, for the same aerosol type, spatial variability cancels out. Some discussion about this would be appreciated.
- Concerning the findings in the PBL, conclusions on the representativeness especially with regard to the coarse Aeolus resolution would be very welcome also because a follow-on mission is planned.
- In the introduction, many terms are used which are just defined later and thus it is partly not understandable for a non-expert. Please change this.
- I personally think that the nomenclature SCA-Rayleigh-bin is misleading. Maybe SCA-single-bin might be more appropriate?
- Please use a unique nomenclature throughout the manuscript. E.g. mean bias is multiple defined. Which is really confusing.
- Generally, please explain all abbreviations when used the first time.
- Furthermore, please check all your plots for color blind conformity. I think green, red, orange and brown are one of the worst-scenario colors for some people.
More specific comments are provided in the pdf.
Data sets
eVe dataset in the ASKOS Campaign Dataset V. Amiridis et al. https://evdc.esa.int/publications/askos-campaign-dataset/
Aeolus Level 2A - Baseline 16 European Space Agency https://aeolus-ds.eo.esa.int/oads/access/collection/Level_2A_aerosol_cloud_optical_products_Reprocessed
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
91 | 21 | 4 | 116 | 1 | 1 |
- HTML: 91
- PDF: 21
- XML: 4
- Total: 116
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1