the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Derivation and validation of a refined dust product from Aeolus (L2A+)
Abstract. The missing cross-channel of the lidar system aboard Aeolus (Atmospheric Laser Doppler Instrument; ALADIN) prevents the generation of accurate optical products when depolarizing atmospheric layers are probed. The absence of the cross-polar component also limits ALADIN's ability to distinguish between different aerosol and cloud types, in its retrievals. To address these limitations, an enhanced Aeolus aerosol product, with a focus on dust, has been developed in the present study to support aerosol data assimilation in dust transport models and improve Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP). The enhanced aerosol product is derived through a series of intermediate processing steps that integrate spaceborne retrievals/products from multiple sensors, reanalysis numerical outputs, and reference ground-based measurements. Both the primary (L2A), and enhanced (L2A+) Aeolus optical products, in terms of profiles of backscatter coefficient at 355 nm are retrieved using four different algorithms, the Standard Correct Algorithm (SCA), the Standard Correct Algorithm at the middle-bin vertical scale (SCA-MB), the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), and AEL-PRO. These products are validated against ground-based reference observations obtained from the eVe and PollyXT lidar systems, operated as part of the ASKOS/JATAC experimental campaign in Mindelo, Cabo Verde. The approach is detailed on the basis of an indicative Aeolus overpass in the proximity of Mindelo on September 3, 2021, discussing ALADIN’s sources of underestimation in terms of L2A backscatter coefficient at 355 nm profiles in the presence of desert dust particles across all four retrieval algorithms and the induced improvements achieved by accounting for the missing cross-polar component. A statistical evaluation of all Aeolus overpasses during the entire ASKOS/JATAC campaign in the Cabo Verde/Mindelo region confirms the enhanced performance of the upgraded L2A+ product compared to the original L2A product. This improvement is evident in both Aeolus-eVe and Aeolus-PollyXT comparisons across all retrieval algorithms and is marked by higher regression slopes and lower bias scores. Specifically, among the algorithms, AEL-PRO and MLE L2A+ products show significant improvements in alignment with eVe lidar observations, with bias reductions from -0.46 to -0.17 Mm⁻¹sr⁻¹ (MLE) and -0.43 to -0.04 Mm⁻¹sr⁻¹ (AEL-PRO). They also achieve lower RMSE values (0.87 Mm⁻¹sr⁻¹ for MLE and 0.62 Mm⁻¹sr⁻¹ for AEL-PRO) and better regression slopes, increasing from 0.39 to 0.65 (MLE) and 0.53 to 0.87 (AEL-PRO). Similarly, L2A+ adjustments reduce biases and improve regression slopes in Aeolus-PollyXT comparisons, especially for SCA-MB and MLE algorithms. These advancements establish the enhanced L2A+ dust product as a strong candidate for aerosol data assimilation, supporting improved dust transport modeling and further enhancing Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP).
Competing interests: Some authors are members of the editorial board of AMT.
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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(3266 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1175', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1175', Dimitri Trapon, 30 Aug 2025
A Review of "Derivation and validation of a refined dust product from Aeolus (L2A+)" by Konstantinos Rizos et al., Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1175, 2025
The paper is well structured and provides valuable insights into the potential of Aeolus aerosol data product Level-2A labelled Baseline 16 for the characterization of dust particles. Kindly consider the comments attached which may help clarifying some points.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
569 | 86 | 15 | 670 | 29 | 51 |
- HTML: 569
- PDF: 86
- XML: 15
- Total: 670
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review comments for “Derivation and validation of a refined dust product from Aeolus (L2A+)” by Rizos et al.
The Aeolus lidar provides only the co-polarized component of the return signal, with the cross-polarized component unavailable. This limitation presents significant challenges in retrieving backscatter from highly polarized returns produced by nonspherical particles such as dust or cirrus clouds. To address this, the authors have developed an enhanced Aeolus aerosol product (L1A+), with an emphasis on dust backscatter coefficients. The algorithm used to generate the L1A+ product incorporates cloud screening based on the CLAAS-3 dataset, derived from observations by the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) onboard the Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) satellites. Aerosol subtyping for dust identification relies on the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) reanalysis dataset. To compensate for the absence of cross-polarized signals, the algorithm assumes a fixed depolarization ratio for pure dust, as defined in the study, to constrain the retrieval.
The L1A+ dust backscatter data were compared with ground-based lidar measurements collected during field campaigns in Mindelo, Cabo Verde. The enhanced L1A+ product showed improved agreement with the ground-based lidar observations compared to the standard Aeolus backscatter product. This improvement is valuable for more accurate aerosol data assimilation in dust transport models and for enhancing Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) capabilities. I suggest the paper is published after revisions. My comments are given in below.
1. Abstract: It could be improved to convey the key points more clearly and concisely. By reading the abstract (and the conclusions), it is unclear how the dust product is refined and improved. Lines 26–28 state: “The enhanced aerosol product is derived through a series of intermediate processing steps that integrate spaceborne retrievals/products from multiple sensors, reanalysis numerical outputs, and reference ground-based measurements.” This could be rewritten more directly, for example, as: “The enhanced dust aerosol product is obtained by estimating the missing cross-polarized component using a fixed depolarization ratio for dust as a constraint. Collocated satellite measurements assist with cloud screening and aerosol subtyping.”
Another example, lines 28-31 state “Both the primary (L2A), and enhanced (L2A+) Aeolus optical products, in terms of profiles of backscatter coefficient at 355 nm are retrieved using four different algorithms, the Standard Correct Algorithm (SCA), the Standard Correct Algorithm at the middle-bin vertical scale (SCA-MB), the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), and AEL-PRO.”, which could be rewritten as: “Both the primary (L2A) and enhanced (L2A+) Aeolus backscatter coefficient profiles at 355 nm are retrieved using four different algorithms: the Standard Correct Algorithm (SCA), the Standard Correct Algorithm with middle-bin vertical scaling (SCA-MB), the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), and AEL-PRO.”
The abstract begins with “The missing cross-channel…”, which may give the impression that the absence of cross-polarization measurements in the Aeolus lidar resulted from a malfunction. It would be helpful to clarify—either in the abstract or in the introduction—that the cross-polarization channel was intentionally omitted by design due to the coaxial configuration of the Aeolus lidar, which was optimized primarily for Doppler wind measurements.
2. Equation 1: The term CPM10 should be clearly defined. Below Eq. 1, the text states: “In the above formula (Eq. 1), the sum of … multiplied by the dry air concentration inside the parenthesis (𝑝𝑚/𝑅𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐 ∗ 𝑇) calculates the mass concentration …” This suggests that CPM10 represents the mass concentration in μg/m³, and the term in parentheses is the dry air concentration. However, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “dry air concentration” here. Based on the units provided in the paper, the expression inside the parentheses appears to have units of kg2/(J·m³), which is inconsistent. Please double-check the dimensional consistency of this term and clearly define what is meant by “dry air concentration.”
Additionally, the terms SS, DD, OM, etc., seem to refer to different aerosol types. However, it is unclear what specific parameter of each aerosol type is being represented (e.g., mixing ratio, mass fraction, volume concentration). To improve clarity, consider using a single character (e.g., f for fraction, c for concentration or X for mixing ratio) to denote the parameter and use the aerosol type as a subscript (e.g., XSS, XOM, etc). This would make the equation structure more interpretable and scientifically consistent.
3. Section 3.3 Aerosol typing method: It appears that the Aeolus dust layer is identified based on CAMS reanalysis products, with predefined thresholds of 1.3 μg/m³ for dust mass concentration and 50% for dust fraction. It seems that the dust fraction is derived using Eq. (1); if so, please clearly explain how this equation is applied in the analysis. Regarding the dust concentration, it is unclear whether it is based solely on CAMS reanalysis data, Aeolus measurements, or a combination of both. Please clarify the data source and methodology used.
Additionally, in Line 491, the phrase “the median value of the entire dust mass concentration” is ambiguous. What does “entire” refer to in this context? Does it mean all BRC bins, the full vertical profile, or something else? Please specify for clarity.
4. Section 3.4 Adjustment of the missing Aeolus cross-polar backscatter component: Equations (2) and (3) are valid for pure dust. However, since a layer is classified as dust when the CAMS dust fraction exceeds 50%, it may not consist entirely of dust. Could the dust fraction be incorporated into the retrieval to account for the presence of other aerosol types?
It would also be valuable to present lidar ratios derived from the L1A+ backscatter coefficient and HSRL extinction coefficient, allowing comparison with previously reported values.
A related question—perhaps beyond the scope of this paper—is whether the lidar ratio could also be used as an additional constraint for identifying pure dust, alongside the depolarization ratio?
5. Figures: The quality of the figures should be improved. Figures 12 and 13, in particular, are overly busy, making it difficult to distinguish individual curves. As a result, it is challenging to assess the agreement between profiles by visual inspection alone. To improve clarity, consider using error bars to represent uncertainties instead of plotting two separate error curves for each backscatter profile.