the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 03 Aug 2026
Development and Experimental Validation of a Reference-type Coherent Doppler Wind Lidar for Meteorological Operations
Abstract. In response to the urgent need for calibration technology in the application of wind lidar in the meteorological operations, this paper describes the development of a Reference-type Coherent Doppler Wind Lidar(RCDWL) for calibration. Based on a dual-channel composite detection mechanism combining continuous and pulsed modes, the RCDWL achieves key technical specifications including a low blind zone of 10 m, a high resolution of 10 m, and a maximum detection altitude of 3,000 m. To verify the performance and stability of the RCDWL, comparison experiments and data analyses were conducted using a radiosonde and a meteorological gradient tower, respectively. Comparison results with the radiosonde showed a wind speed systematic error of -0.05 m/s and a standard deviation of 1.11 m/s, while the wind direction systematic error was 1.34° with a standard deviation of 12.05°; the correlation coefficients were all higher than 0.97.Comparison results with the gradient tower showed a systematic error of 0.01 m/s and a standard deviation of 0.28 m/s for wind speed, and a systematic error of -0.09° and a standard deviation of 2.90° for wind direction, with correlation coefficients all exceeding 0.98. Based on these results, we used RCDWL as a reference source for a joint comparison and analysis of 9 lidars in meteorological operations. The results showed that the correlation coefficients for horizontal wind speed were greater than 0.98, with standard deviations less than 0.8 m/s; for wind direction, the correlation coefficients were greater than 0.97, with standard deviations less than 8°. Additionally, when using RCDWL as a reference standard source for the comparison and calibration of lidars prior to shipment, RCDWL effectively improves the product accuracy of lidars prior to shipment. These results fully validate the detection capabilities and stability of the RCDWL, establishing a stable and reliable reference benchmark for lidar calibration within the meteorological operations. The RCDWL fills a technical gap in wind lidar calibration reference sources and can be used for the comparison and calibration of Lidar equipment, holding great practical significance for enhancing the application level of wind lidars in various fields.
- Preprint
(2067 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Sep 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3088', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Aug 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3088', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Aug 2026
reply
The authors have developed a reference-type coherent Doppler wind LiDAR (RCDWL) for calibration of meteorological LiDAR, which has strong practical value in application. The manuscript mentions a dual-channel composite detection mechanism based on a combination of continuous and pulsed modes. CDWL has achieved key technical indicators such as a low blind zone of 10 meters, high resolution of 10 meters, and a maximum detection height of 3000 meters. This job is quite interesting. And using radiosondes, meteorological gradient towers, and 9 types of LiDAR for comparative observation and analysis, the work is relatively solid. However, there is room for improvement in the writing of the manuscript and the standardization of the illustrations. Otherwise, it will lose the interest of many readers and cause confusion. I think it is necessary to make major revisions to the manuscript before publication. The specific revision suggestions are as follows:
- In the abstract section: It is necessary to streamline the content and highlight the innovative work, rather than a large amount.
- In the introduction section: A brief introduction was given to the development history of LiDAR and various calibration methods for LiDAR. From my perspective, I believe that the authors avoided the important and focused on the trivial, and did not provide any reference on the development process of LiDAR core technology. The implication is that in terms of the development of reference radar, what technology or methods did the author use to innovate and what problems were solved. The outline of the problem is not clear enough. Or what new methods are used in the calibration process? These did not provide clear statements. This is regrettable.
- Authors need to reintroduce the development history of the core innovation section in the manuscript and add corresponding references.
- From the current manuscript, it appears that there is insufficient expression of innovation and there is no clear discussion. If it is only focused on comparative verification, then I think this paper still needs further discussion.
- Isn't it bad to give a conclusion directly at the end of the background introduction? This kind of writing is puzzling. Authors need to improve their writing skills.
- In section 2 of the manuscript：Figure 1 (a) is not clear, the font is small, and the quality is poor. The schematic diagram in Figure 2 and the flowchart in Figure 3 look terrible, but from a normative perspective, there is a lot of room for improvement.
- What is the purpose of placing the workflow diagram in Figure 3 here? Does it reflect your core skills and methods?
- In the description of section 2, the process of data processing is provided, it was not seen what methods or techniques can be used to adjust or reduce errors when the speed accuracy and error are large. This further raises the question of whether this mechanism of LiDAR can achieve high accuracy?
- The simulations in Figures 4 and 5 do not have specific descriptions, making it feel like they suddenly ended, which is terrible.
- If possible, try to make the tables in the manuscript into three line tables to increase readability.
- In section 3.2, the comparison results are very beautiful. If there are any errors or inaccuracies during the observation process, I would like to know how to adjust them? Why not display some observation results compared to altitude? Or statistical analysis of errors with altitude? At which altitudes is it possible to have significant errors and what are the reasons?
- The authors' rough handling of wind directions exceeding 360 ° in Figure 6 (b) is shocking, please correct it.
- Figures 8, 9, and 10 have poor quality. Please make changes to improve readability.
- In section 3.3, the author only provided data for two points (10 meters and 200 meters) when analyzing the comparison between LiDAR and meteorological tower sensors. What about the rest? I think when analyzing (Figures 9 and 10), more data analysis can be provided to increase the reliability of the evidence.
- What is 66 operational LiDARs (compared to the other 66 LiDARs?) in Figure 11 and the corresponding narrative section of the manuscript? What is its function? What do you want to express here?
- In the fourth section, Figure 12 presents a comparative presentation on December 18, 2023, which was not mentioned in the manuscript narrative section and is quite confusing. I think the authors did not take the manuscript writing seriously and it was very rough.
- The authors did not provide latitude and longitude coordinates for the comparison locations of the experiments, which is confusing.
- The authors' rough handling of data beyond 360 ° in Figures 13 (b) and 13 (d) is shocking. Please correct it.
- The conclusion needs to be rephrased based on the revised content.
- The writing and narration of the entire manuscript are poor and require overall improvement.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 106 | 24 | 15 | 145 | 9 | 7 |
- HTML: 106
- PDF: 24
- XML: 15
- Total: 145
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper describes the development of a reference-type coherent Doppler wind lidar for calibration of meteorological operations. This lidar system have a dual-channel composite detection mechanism combining continuous and pulsed modes. Then, the comparisons analysis are conducted using the radiosonde and meteorological gradient tower, respectively. In general, they obtained very good agreement. These suggest that the RCDWL have good performance with high detection accuracy, stability, and reliability. However, some major revisions are necessary before potential publication.
Major comments：
1, In this paper, the developed coherent Doppler lidar is defined as a reference-type lidar. However, in the introduction to the background and lidar technology, the question arises as to why this specific lidar qualifies as a reference-type lidar, whereas other wind lidars do not, despite the fact that all of them can similarly be compared and validated against gradient tower and radiosonde measurements.
2, In section 3.2, “a total of 87 valid synchronous comparison…”, so, is the number the effective groups after excluding adverse weather conditions? And what is the spatial resolution of radiosonde observation? How do the authors match the observations from lidar and radiosonde?
3, Is the coherent wind lidar used for the radiosonde comparison not the same as the one used for the meteorological gradient tower comparison? If that is the case, the lidar notations in Figures 6, 8, 9, and 10 should be made consistent.
4, The validation of the wind speed and wind direction retrieval is incomplete based on radiosonde observation. The main evidence is correlation coefficient, standard deviation, and systematic error. The vertical profiles of these validation should be added.
5, In figure 13, how to understand the wind direction values which are greater than 360 degree?
6, In table 2, are these results from the comparison between nine lidars and radiosonde? Or RCDWL?
Specific comments:
1, What do VCM and VAD stand for? Their full names should be given, accompanied by the relevant references..
2, The formatting of the references is not uniform. For instance, both round brackets (parentheses) and square brackets appear in the introduction.
3, line 135：“…1.54 V(V＞10m/s)…”.
4, In Figure 4 and Figure 5, the unit of color bar should be given.
5, In Figure 10a, the annotation reads "100 m." Please verify this