3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- ItemAssessment of lidar depolarization uncertainty by means of a polarimetric lidar simulator(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2016) Bravo-Aranda, Juan Antonio; Belegante, Livio; Freudenthaler, Volker; Alados-Arboledas, Lucas; Nicolae, Doina; Granados-Muñoz, María José; Guerrero-Rascado, Juan Luis; Amodeo, Aldo; D'Amico, Giusseppe; Engelmann, Ronny; Pappalardo, Gelsomina; Kokkalis, Panos; Mamouri, Rodanthy; Papayannis, Alex; Navas-Guzmán, Francisco; Olmo, Francisco José; Wandinger, Ulla; Amato, Francesco; Haeffelin, MartialLidar depolarization measurements distinguish between spherical and non-spherical aerosol particles based on the change of the polarization state between the emitted and received signal. The particle shape information in combination with other aerosol optical properties allows the characterization of different aerosol types and the retrieval of aerosol particle microphysical properties. Regarding the microphysical inversions, the lidar depolarization technique is becoming a key method since particle shape information can be used by algorithms based on spheres and spheroids, optimizing the retrieval procedure. Thus, the identification of the depolarization error sources and the quantification of their effects are crucial. This work presents a new tool to assess the systematic error of the volume linear depolarization ratio (δ), combining the Stokes–Müller formalism and the complete sampling of the error space using the lidar model presented in Freudenthaler (2016a). This tool is applied to a synthetic lidar system and to several EARLINET lidars with depolarization capabilities at 355 or 532 nm. The lidar systems show relative errors of δ larger than 100 % for δ values around molecular linear depolarization ratios (∼ 0.004 and up to ∼ 10 % for δ = 0.45). However, one system shows only relative errors of 25 and 0.22 % for δ = 0.004 and δ = 0.45, respectively, and gives an example of how a proper identification and reduction of the main error sources can drastically reduce the systematic errors of δ. In this regard, we provide some indications of how to reduce the systematic errors.
- ItemEARLINET instrument intercomparison campaigns: Overview on strategy and results(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2016) Wandinger, Ulla; Freudenthaler, Volker; Baars, Holger; Amodeo, Aldo; Engelmann, Ronny; Mattis, Ina; Groß, Silke; Pappalardo, Gelsomina; Giunta, Aldo; D'Amico, Giuseppe; Chaikovsky, Anatoli; Osipenko, Fiodor; Slesar, Alexander; Nicolae, Doina; Belegante, Livio; Talianu, Camelia; Serikov, Ilya; Linné, Holger; Jansen, Friedhelm; Apituley, Arnoud; Wilson, Keith M.; de Graaf, Martin; Trickl, Thomas; Giehl, Helmut; Adam, Mariana; Comerón, Adolfo; Muñoz-Porcar, Constantino; Rocadenbosch, Francesc; Sicard, Michaël; Tomás, Sergio; Lange, Diego; Kumar, Dhiraj; Pujadas, Manuel; Molero, Francisco; Fernández, Alfonso J.; Alados-Arboledas, Lucas; Bravo-Aranda, Juan Antonio; Navas-Guzmán, Francisco; Guerrero-Rascado, Juan Luis; Granados-Muñoz, María José; Preißler, Jana; Wagner, Frank; Gausa, Michael; Grigorov, Ivan; Stoyanov, Dimitar; Iarlori, Marco; Rizi, Vincenco; Spinelli, Nicola; Boselli, Antonella; Wang, Xuan; Feudo, Teresa Lo; Perrone, Maria Rita; De Tomas, Ferdinando; Burlizzi, PasqualeThis 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.
- ItemExperimental techniques for the calibration of lidar depolarization channels in EARLINET(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2018) Belegante, Livio; Bravo-Aranda, Juan Antonio; Freudenthaler, Volker; Nicolae, Doina; Nemuc, Anca; Ene, Dragos; Alados-Arboledas, Lucas; Amodeo, Aldo; Pappalardo, Gelsomina; D'Amico, Giuseppe; Amato, Francesco; Engelmann, Ronny; Baars, Holger; Wandinger, Ulla; Papayannis, Alexandros; Kokkalis, Panos; Pereira, Sérgio N.Particle depolarization ratio retrieved from lidar measurements are commonly used for aerosol-typing studies, microphysical inversion, or mass concentration retrievals. The particle depolarization ratio is one of the primary parameters that can differentiate several major aerosol components but only if the measurements are accurate enough. The accuracy related to the retrieval of particle depolarization ratios is the driving factor for assessing and improving the uncertainties of the depolarization products. This paper presents different depolarization calibration procedures used to improve the quality of the depolarization data. The results illustrate a significant improvement of the depolarization lidar products for all the selected lidar stations that have implemented depolarization calibration procedures. The calibrated volume and particle depolarization profiles at 532-nm show values that fall within a range that is generally accepted in the literature.