Filters

2014 - 20162

More filters

20192
Reset filters

Settings

Subject: error analysis × Subject: lidar ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessment 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, Martial
    Lidar 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Surface matters: Limitations of CALIPSO V3 aerosol typing in coastal regions
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2014) Kanitz, T.; Ansmann, A.; Foth, A.; Seifert, P.; Wandinger, U.; Engelmann, R.; Baars, H.; Althausen, D.; Casiccia, C.; Zamorano, F.
    In the CALIPSO data analysis, surface type (land/ocean) is used to augment the aerosol characterization. However, this surface-dependent aerosol typing prohibits a correct classification of marine aerosol over land that is advected from ocean to land. This might result in a systematic overestimation of the particle extinction coefficient and of the aerosol optical thickness (AOT) of up to a factor of 3.5 over land in coastal areas. We present a long-term comparison of CALIPSO and ground-based lidar observations of the aerosol conditions in the coastal environment of southern South America (Punta Arenas, Chile, 53° S), performed in December 2009–April 2010. Punta Arenas is almost entirely influenced by marine particles throughout the year, indicated by a rather low AOT of 0.02–0.04. However, we found an unexpectedly high fraction of continental aerosol in the aerosol types inferred by means of CALIOP observations and, correspondingly, too high values of particle extinction. Similar features of the CALIOP data analysis are presented for four other coastal areas around the world. Since CALIOP data serve as important input for global climate models, the influence of this systematic error was estimated by means of simplified radiative-transfer calculations.