the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Intercomparison of Seven Collocated Ground-based Infrared Spectrometer Radiance Observations and Retrieved Thermodynamic Profiles
Abstract. Thermodynamic profiles, especially in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL), are essential for many research and operational applications. Ground-based infrared spectrometers (IRS) are commercially available, and thermodynamic profiles in the ABL can be retrieved from these observations at 5-minute resolution or better. This study deployed seven IRS systems within 5 m of each other in Boulder, Colorado, USA, in September–October 2023, providing an opportunity to evaluate the relative accuracy of the measured radiances from these systems as well as the retrieved thermodynamic profiles. The analysis demonstrates that the observed radiances from the seven instruments agree within 1 % of the ambient radiance in both opaque and more transparent channels. The differences in the spectral calibration between the instruments were smaller than 0.11 cm-1, relative to the nominal effective wavenumber of the metrology laser of 15799 cm-1 (i.e., better than 7.1 ppm). Further, the retrieved temperature and humidity profiles agree with each other well within the uncertainty of the retrieved profiles, and qualities derived from these thermodynamic profiles such as precipitable water vapor and height of the convective boundary layer also agree within their uncertainties. These results demonstrate a high degree of repeatability and precision, and that if these instruments were deployed as part of a network, any differences larger than the retrieval uncertainty would be associated with real environmental differences and not an artifact of the instrument calibration or retrieval.
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 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
(3275 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Jan 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4814', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Jan 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4814', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jan 2026
reply
General Comments
This study provides an intercomparison between seven collocated ground-based infrared spectrometers (ASSIST systems) during a one-month period in the fall of 2023 in Boulder, CO. The purpose of this study is to show that identical instruments (i.e., ASSISTs) produce the same observations (within an instruments’ uncertainty) and thus can be used/interpreted interchangeably when deployed as a network system. This is an important assumption to confirm in order to discern whether differences within an observational network are associated with atmospheric changes and not instrument characteristic differences. This work also provides further confidence in the use of infrared spectrometers for planetary boundary layer observational work, with real world potential applications particularly with estimating advection.Â
The instruments’ measured infrared radiances agreed to within 1% of ambient radiance across both opaque and transparent spectral channels, and their spectral calibration differences were quite small (≤7.1 ppm). Using the TROPoe optimal estimation retrieval, temperature and water vapor profiles derived from each instrument showed near-zero mean biases and excellent agreement well within retrieval uncertainties under both clear sky and cloudy conditions. Derived quantities such as precipitable water vapor and planetary boundary layer height also closely matched across all systems. These results demonstrate high precision and repeatability of both the ASSIST instruments and the TROPoe retrieval framework, supporting their suitability for deployment in profiling networks where observed spatial differences can be confidently attributed to real atmospheric variability rather than instrumental or retrieval artifacts.
The presentation of this work, along with the methods used, are sound and well presented. I would recommend publication after minor revisions, which are mostly technical in nature.Â
Â
Specific Comments
- Line 72: Suggest rephrase to ‘TROPoe uses the line by line radiative transfer model (LBLTRM; Clough et al. 2004)...’
- Lines 181-193: You point out the ‘spikiness’ in Fig. 6, associated with the sides of absorption lines and different residual instrument response functions. However, it isn’t clear how this would effect the end user or how you address this (and the other instrument differences in this paragraph) in the following sections. You show clear agreement among retrievals, but don’t close the loop of how the differences highlighted here correspond to the final product.Â
- This intercomparison study was completed in a relatively dry environment. Would you expect the instruments and/or retrievals to behave similarly in a humid region, such as in the deep south? I think this would be a beneficial piece of discussion for the conclusions section.Â
Â
Technical Comments
- The following references are missing from the reference list:
- National Research Council 2009
- Illingworth et al. 2018
- Michaud-Belleau et al. 2025
- Gero and Turner 2011
- Shupe et al. 2013
- Turner and Mlawer 2010
- Adler et al. 2013Â
- Mlawer et al. 2024
- Minnett et al. 2001
- Clough et al. 2004
- Hu et al. 2019
- The Sisterson et al. 2016 reference in the reference list is not referenced in the paper.
- Line 182: Figure number is missing.Â
- Line 218: TROPoe is already defined, no need to redefine
- Figures: Consider using colorblind-friendly choices, particularly in Fig. 3 where red/green are used together in a way that would make it hard for an impaired individual to tell the difference between the HBB temperature and HBB emissivity apart.
- Figs. 4 and 5: Update with higher resolution, it appears fuzzy.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4814-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4814', Anonymous Referee #3, 11 Jan 2026
reply
This manuscript presents an intercomparison of seven co-located infrared spectrometer observations. The work is very valuable as the relative calibration and random uncertainties between different instruments proved to be very small, thus allowing a network use of these instruments.Â
General comments:
The manuscript is well written and structured. Also, concise and clear language is used.Minor comments:
Abstract, line 27: you mean "quantities", not "qualities", I guess?Â
Line 195: check phrase ("observed" is repeated)
Line 253, and Fig. 10 (right): Do you have an idea why ASSIST-20 has a larger disagreement in the lower layers? If so, could you give a short explanation in the text?
Line 266: PWV uncertainties are 0.1-0.3 mm (not 1-3 mm) according to Fig. 12Figure 1 (and 3): ASSIST measures up to 3300 cm-1. Why do you show only the range until 1400 (1500) cm-1. If you have a good reason for this, please mention it in the paper why you restrict these plots to this selection of wavelengths. Otherwise, I would suggest to show the whole spectrum.Â
Figure 4: Why is the upper axes range set to 150? It seems that there are also data above this value. Do you have a reason for that? I would suggest showing the whole range.Â
Technical comments:
Please check the list of references. It seems that many references in the introduction are not listed.ÂCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4814-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 180 | 50 | 14 | 244 | 11 | 13 |
- HTML: 180
- PDF: 50
- XML: 14
- Total: 244
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This study compares seven collocated infrared spectrometers over a month‑long deployment to evaluate consistency in radiance measurements and retrieved thermodynamic profiles.
The instruments agree within 1% in radiance, display minimal spectral calibration differences, and produce temperature, humidity, and derived quantities (such as PWV and boundary‑layer height) that match well within expected uncertainties.
General Comments
This is a clear, rigorous, and well‑presented intercomparison study that convincingly demonstrates the reliability of modern IRS instruments for network applications.
The scientific approach is sound, the analysis thorough, and the presentation is clear and well structured. I find the work robust and valuable, and would recommend publication subject to minor technical corrections.
Technical corrections
r160 has -> have
r162 provides -> provide
r182 missing Fig. number
r218 TROPoe acronym is already defined in r71