the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 25 Aug 2025
Temperature profiles combined from lidar and airglow measurements
Abstract. In this study we examine the performance of the 354.8-nm Rayleigh temperature channel of the Raman lidar at the Schneefernerhaus high-altitude research station (UFS) in the Bavarian Alps (at 2675 m a.s.l.). The temperature reference value of the retrieval is adjusted to match the temperature determined from the OH* airglow around 86 km by the GRIPS instruments at UFS. In this way the quality of the 1-h measurements of the lidar is improved above 70 km. Comparisons were made between the UFS lidar, the MLS (Microwave Limb Sounder) satellite-borne instrument and the 354.8-nm temperature channel of Hohenpeißenberg (MOHp) differential-absorption ozone lidar. Between 35 km and 70 km we see a positive offset of the UFS temperatures with respect to the MLS values of up to about 9 K. This behaviour just slightly exceeds the expectations from earlier work. Despite a horizontal distance of just 40 km between UFS and MOHp acceptable agreement below 70 km was found in several cases. However, in general, the MOHp temperatures were slightly lower than those above UFS. We discuss potential technical issues and suggest solutions for upgrading the UFS lidar system. A significant enhancement of the laser repetition rate is recommended.
-
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
(2034 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2034 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1952', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Sep 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Thomas Trickl, 27 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1952', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Oct 2025
This paper has done meticulous work in obtaining accurate atmospheric temperature profiles. The temperature reference value of the retrieval is adjusted to match the temperature determined from the OH* airglow around 86 km by the GRIPS instruments at UFS，or lidar lidar data at MOHp. A detailed comparison was made between the atmospheric temperature profile obtained from UFS LiDAR and NCEP, MLS, radiosonde, and MOHp LiDAR data. A good discussion is provided. There are also some minor modification suggestions:
(1) The 'Fig.1' in section 3.1 should be 'Fig.2'.
(2) When there is no OH * airglow data, can you further explain why chose the reference altitude of 77km using MOHp lidar data (such as Figure 7).
(3) I don't understand the meaning of 'disregarding the ringing' in Figure 7.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1952-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Trickl, 27 Oct 2025
See Reply 1
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1952-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Trickl, 27 Oct 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1952', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Sep 2025
This manuscript discusses recent temperature lidar measurements performed by UFS at the Schneefernerhaus high-altitude station near Garmisch-Partenkirchen in Southern Germany. The manuscript is well-written, in proper English, and remains mostly clear. The UFS lidar profiles are compared with profiles measured by other instruments or produced by models, namely NCEP, Aura-MLS, radiosonde and another lidar located 40 km away.
Measuring temperature profiles from this UFS lidar system is the main novel aspect of the paper. The technique itself has been used for several decades, mostly using multi-hour nighttime averages. This new dataset is introduced early in the paper has having the potential to be used for shorter averaging periods such as half hour. After highlighting small but not negligible differences with GRIPS and the MoHP lidar, the authors conclude that additional tests, this time with a co-located (zenith viewing) spectrometer (planned upgrade), will help to fully characterize the UFS lidar temperature measurements, with the ultimate goal to potentially contribute to the ground-based network NDACC.
Out of the previous round of review, the authors have addressed most of the comments I had formulated. From a data user point of view, this new UFS lidar temperature dataset appears to be of very good quality and certainly promising, and for this reason, I recommend the paper to be published after a few more minor revisions/clarifications detailed below:
Line 365: “the shifted horizontal position of the OH* measurements”
For clarity, please use the term “lack of co-location” and refer clearly to the difference in viewing direction of the lidar and GRIPS instruments (the OH* layer itself is everywhere, not just south of the Central Alps).
Line 449: “5. At least, the agreement between the two lidar systems is better than that in Fig. 5”
Please use a figure similar to Fig. 5 summarizing the difference between the lidars. Such figure would have more value than showing one profile at a time on multiple figures. Note that
Line 460-462: “The measurements were carried out with durations of just half an hour”
I think the authors mean here that the temperature profiles were retrieved at half-hour resolution, yet the lidar measurements themselves were continuous throughout the night. Please re-write this sentence to make this clear (or, if not the case, please clarify what you mean ).
Line 562: Typo "verticlly"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1952-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Thomas Trickl, 27 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1952', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Oct 2025
This paper has done meticulous work in obtaining accurate atmospheric temperature profiles. The temperature reference value of the retrieval is adjusted to match the temperature determined from the OH* airglow around 86 km by the GRIPS instruments at UFS，or lidar lidar data at MOHp. A detailed comparison was made between the atmospheric temperature profile obtained from UFS LiDAR and NCEP, MLS, radiosonde, and MOHp LiDAR data. A good discussion is provided. There are also some minor modification suggestions:
(1) The 'Fig.1' in section 3.1 should be 'Fig.2'.
(2) When there is no OH * airglow data, can you further explain why chose the reference altitude of 77km using MOHp lidar data (such as Figure 7).
(3) I don't understand the meaning of 'disregarding the ringing' in Figure 7.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1952-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Trickl, 27 Oct 2025
See Reply 1
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1952-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Trickl, 27 Oct 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,865 | 73 | 28 | 1,966 | 42 | 37 |
- HTML: 1,865
- PDF: 73
- XML: 28
- Total: 1,966
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 37
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Thomas Trickl
Hannes Vogelmann
Michael Bittner
Gerald Nedoluha
Carsten Schmidt
Wolfgang Steinbrecht
Sabine Wüst
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2034 KB) - Metadata XML
This manuscript discusses recent temperature lidar measurements performed by UFS at the Schneefernerhaus high-altitude station near Garmisch-Partenkirchen in Southern Germany. The manuscript is well-written, in proper English, and remains mostly clear. The UFS lidar profiles are compared with profiles measured by other instruments or produced by models, namely NCEP, Aura-MLS, radiosonde and another lidar located 40 km away.
Measuring temperature profiles from this UFS lidar system is the main novel aspect of the paper. The technique itself has been used for several decades, mostly using multi-hour nighttime averages. This new dataset is introduced early in the paper has having the potential to be used for shorter averaging periods such as half hour. After highlighting small but not negligible differences with GRIPS and the MoHP lidar, the authors conclude that additional tests, this time with a co-located (zenith viewing) spectrometer (planned upgrade), will help to fully characterize the UFS lidar temperature measurements, with the ultimate goal to potentially contribute to the ground-based network NDACC.
Out of the previous round of review, the authors have addressed most of the comments I had formulated. From a data user point of view, this new UFS lidar temperature dataset appears to be of very good quality and certainly promising, and for this reason, I recommend the paper to be published after a few more minor revisions/clarifications detailed below:
Line 365: “the shifted horizontal position of the OH* measurements”
For clarity, please use the term “lack of co-location” and refer clearly to the difference in viewing direction of the lidar and GRIPS instruments (the OH* layer itself is everywhere, not just south of the Central Alps).
Line 449: “5. At least, the agreement between the two lidar systems is better than that in Fig. 5”
Please use a figure similar to Fig. 5 summarizing the difference between the lidars. Such figure would have more value than showing one profile at a time on multiple figures. Note that
Line 460-462: “The measurements were carried out with durations of just half an hour”
I think the authors mean here that the temperature profiles were retrieved at half-hour resolution, yet the lidar measurements themselves were continuous throughout the night. Please re-write this sentence to make this clear (or, if not the case, please clarify what you mean ).
Line 562: Typo "verticlly"