Filters

2016 - 201912020 - 20211

More filters

2019 - 201912020 - 20221
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Baars, Holger × Subject: backscatter × Subject: comparative study ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    EARLINET 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, Pasquale
    This 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Experimental assessment of a micro-pulse lidar system in comparison with reference lidar measurements for aerosol optical properties retrieval
    (Katlenburg-Lindau : European Geosciences Union, 2021) Córdoba-Jabonero, Carmen; Ansmann, Albert; Jiménez, Cristofer; Baars, Holger; López-Cayuela, María-Ángeles; Engelmann, Ronny
    Simultaneous observations of a polarized micro-pulse lidar (P-MPL) system and two reference European Aerosol Research Lidar Network lidars running at the Leipzig site Germany, 51.4g gN, 12.4g gE; 125gmga.s.l.) were performed during a comprehensive 2-month field intercomparison campaign in summer 2019. An experimental assessment regarding both the overlap (OVP) correction of the P-MPL signal profiles and the volume linear depolarization ratio (VLDR) analysis, together with its impact on the retrieval of the aerosol optical properties, is achieved; the experimental procedure used is also described. The optimal lidar-specific OVP function is experimentally determined, highlighting that the one delivered by the P-MPL manufacturer cannot be used long. Among the OVP functions examined, the averaged function between those obtained from the comparison of the P-MPL observations with those of the other two reference lidars seems to be the best proxy at both near- and far-field ranges. In addition, the impact of the OVP function on the accuracy of the retrieved profiles of the total particle backscatter coefficient (PBC) and the particle linear depolarization ratio (PLDR) is examined. The VLDR profile is obtained and compared with that derived from the reference lidar, showing that it needs to be corrected by a small offset value with good accuracy. Once P-MPL measurements are optimally (OVP, VLDR) corrected, both the PBC and PLDR profiles can be accurately derived and are in good agreement with reference aerosol retrievals. Overall, as a systematic requirement for lidar systems, an adequate OVP function determination and VLDR testing analysis needs to be performed on a regular basis to correct the P-MPL measurements in order to derive suitable aerosol products. A dust event observed in Leipzig in June 2019 is used for illustration.