EARLINET instrument intercomparison campaigns: Overview on strategy and results

dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage1001eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue3eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.lastPage1023eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume9
dc.contributor.authorWandinger, Ulla
dc.contributor.authorFreudenthaler, Volker
dc.contributor.authorBaars, Holger
dc.contributor.authorAmodeo, Aldo
dc.contributor.authorEngelmann, Ronny
dc.contributor.authorMattis, Ina
dc.contributor.authorGroß, Silke
dc.contributor.authorPappalardo, Gelsomina
dc.contributor.authorGiunta, Aldo
dc.contributor.authorD'Amico, Giuseppe
dc.contributor.authorChaikovsky, Anatoli
dc.contributor.authorOsipenko, Fiodor
dc.contributor.authorSlesar, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorNicolae, Doina
dc.contributor.authorBelegante, Livio
dc.contributor.authorTalianu, Camelia
dc.contributor.authorSerikov, Ilya
dc.contributor.authorLinné, Holger
dc.contributor.authorJansen, Friedhelm
dc.contributor.authorApituley, Arnoud
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Keith M.
dc.contributor.authorde Graaf, Martin
dc.contributor.authorTrickl, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorGiehl, Helmut
dc.contributor.authorAdam, Mariana
dc.contributor.authorComerón, Adolfo
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz-Porcar, Constantino
dc.contributor.authorRocadenbosch, Francesc
dc.contributor.authorSicard, Michaël
dc.contributor.authorTomás, Sergio
dc.contributor.authorLange, Diego
dc.contributor.authorKumar, Dhiraj
dc.contributor.authorPujadas, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorMolero, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorFernández, Alfonso J.
dc.contributor.authorAlados-Arboledas, Lucas
dc.contributor.authorBravo-Aranda, Juan Antonio
dc.contributor.authorNavas-Guzmán, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorGuerrero-Rascado, Juan Luis
dc.contributor.authorGranados-Muñoz, María José
dc.contributor.authorPreißler, Jana
dc.contributor.authorWagner, Frank
dc.contributor.authorGausa, Michael
dc.contributor.authorGrigorov, Ivan
dc.contributor.authorStoyanov, Dimitar
dc.contributor.authorIarlori, Marco
dc.contributor.authorRizi, Vincenco
dc.contributor.authorSpinelli, Nicola
dc.contributor.authorBoselli, Antonella
dc.contributor.authorWang, Xuan
dc.contributor.authorFeudo, Teresa Lo
dc.contributor.authorPerrone, Maria Rita
dc.contributor.authorDe Tomas, Ferdinando
dc.contributor.authorBurlizzi, Pasquale
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-13T00:21:57Z
dc.date.available2019-06-26T17:20:15Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractThis paper introduces the recent European Aerosol Research Lidar Network (EARLINET) quality-assurance efforts at instrument level. Within two dedicated campaigns and five single-site intercomparison activities, 21 EARLINET systems from 18 EARLINET stations were intercompared between 2009 and 2013. A comprehensive strategy for campaign setup and data evaluation has been established. Eleven systems from nine EARLINET stations participated in the EARLINET Lidar Intercomparison 2009 (EARLI09). In this campaign, three reference systems were qualified which served as traveling standards thereafter. EARLINET systems from nine other stations have been compared against these reference systems since 2009. We present and discuss comparisons at signal and at product level from all campaigns for more than 100 individual measurement channels at the wavelengths of 355, 387, 532, and 607 nm. It is shown that in most cases, a very good agreement of the compared systems with the respective reference is obtained. Mean signal deviations in predefined height ranges are typically below ±2 %. Particle backscatter and extinction coefficients agree within ±2  ×  10−4 km−1 sr−1 and ± 0.01 km−1, respectively, in most cases. For systems or channels that showed larger discrepancies, an in-depth analysis of deficiencies was performed and technical solutions and upgrades were proposed and realized. The intercomparisons have reinforced confidence in the EARLINET data quality and allowed us to draw conclusions on necessary system improvements for some instruments and to identify major challenges that need to be tackled in the future.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedVersioneng
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.34657/916
dc.identifier.urihttps://oa.tib.eu/renate/handle/123456789/756
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherMünchen : European Geopyhsical Unioneng
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-1001-2016
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAtmospheric Measurement Techniques, Volume 9, Issue 3, Page 1001-1023eng
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 3.0 Unportedeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/eng
dc.subjectaerosoleng
dc.subjectbackscattereng
dc.subjectcomparative studyeng
dc.subjectdata qualityeng
dc.subjectheighteng
dc.subjectlidareng
dc.subjectsignaleng
dc.subjectweather stationeng
dc.subject.ddc550eng
dc.titleEARLINET instrument intercomparison campaigns: Overview on strategy and resultseng
dc.typearticleeng
dc.typeTexteng
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journalTitleAtmospheric Measurement Techniqueseng
tib.accessRightsopenAccesseng
wgl.contributorTROPOSeng
wgl.subjectGeowissenschafteneng
wgl.typeZeitschriftenartikeleng
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
amt-9-1001-2016.pdf
Size:
1.71 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: