the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
On the impact of a misestimation of the lidar ratio in the retrieval of the overlap function of an elastic/Raman lidar and a two-step explicit formulation of the overlap function retrieval
Abstract. In a relatively recent paper by the authors, an explicit (i.e. non iterative) formula was provided for recovering the overlap factor in an aerosol lidar equipped with a N2/O2 Raman channel close to an elastic one to retrieve the aerosol extinction coefficient. One of the advantages of that formula is that it allows for the estimation of the impact of an erroneous lidar ratio in the retrieved overlap function. In the cited paper, the equation that relates the retrieved overlap function to the true one and the error on the assumed lidar ratio was given with almost no proof, on the grounds that its derivation was “boring and cumbersome, but otherwise straightforward”. After having discussed that equation with some interested researchers, it turns out that its derivation is not perhaps that straightforward. Therefore, we provide here its derivation. As a subproduct of that derivation, we propose a streamlined, two-step explicit formulation to retrieve the overlap function.
- Preprint
(443 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Sep 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2703', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Aug 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 112 | 31 | 15 | 158 | 13 | 14 |
- HTML: 112
- PDF: 31
- XML: 15
- Total: 158
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Summary
This is a short and concrete follow-up paper of Comeron et al. 2023 showing how Eq. 7 has been obtained. The paper is almost ready for publication after dealing with some small technical issues.
General comments:
It would be of great value for error simulations and for RR applications to include in the overlap calculation technique the case where the overlap is not exactly the same for both the elastic and Raman channel. In most biaxial lidar systems, the angle of incidence (AoI) on the interference filter of the rays collected by the telescope changes fast with range until the distance of full overlap is reached. The transmission of interference filters used on every lidar channel changes with the AoI. This can introduce a “dichroic” overlap-like effect which, in contrast to the geometric overlap is expected to be different for each channel. Rotational Raman channels are especially sensitive to this effect as small shifts to the transmission spectrum determines which rotational Raman lines are attenuated. The effect can also be significant for elastic and vibrational Raman channels if very narrow interference filters (bandwidth < 0.5 nm) are used.
This comment is rather a recommendation to the authors to improve the scientific importance than a critical missing aspect of the paper. The paper can already be published in its current form.
Specific comments:
Line 14: Is this a rotational or vibrational channel? Single channel or 2 different channels? If single, why both gases are mentioned?
Line 54: The term β_mR / β_m0 can be, in fact, slightly dependent on the temperature because of the temperature dependence of the cross-section of the rotational Raman (RR) lines in combination with the transmission of the interference filter. The interference filter is often not taken into account in the lidar equation. Adam et al. 2009 and 2012 showed that the temperature dependence is generally small enough to be considered negligible for elastic channels. I suggest to refer to those papers here and rephrase the text indicating that the range dependence is negligible. The temperature dependence of β_mR should be also small for vibrational Raman channels. For RR channels temperature effects can be introduced if the filter is not configured properly so that cross-section changes at the transmitted lower J lines are compensated well by the higher J lines.
Eq 5: I have repeated the calculations mentioned by the authors (substituting Eq 3a and 3b in Eq 4) and I can confirm that they result to Eq 5. It might be worth showing how the last exponential term of Eq 4 becomes much simpler after substituting X and X_R (showing that the integrals from 0 to x and from x to R_m add up to an integral from 0 to R_m which is constant and can get out of the double integral). This part requires some “imagination” and might not be straightforward to all readers. The rest of algebraic calculations are straightforward.
Eq. 7: Please mention the equivalent equation from Comeron et al. 2023
Technical comments:
Eq 3a: Please change β_αο to β_α0
Eq 4: Please change β_mο to β_m0 in the second exponential term