Aerosol backscatter profiles from ceilometers: validation of water vapor correction in the framework of CeiLinEx2015

Wiegner, Matthias; Mattis, Ina; Pattantyús-Ábrahám, Margit; Bravo-Aranda, Juan Antonio; Poltera, Yann; Haefele, Alexander; Hervo, Maxime; Görsdorf, Ulrich; Leinweber, Ronny; Gasteiger, Josef; Haeffelin, Martial; Wagner, Frank; Cermak, Jan; Komínková, Katerina; Brettle, Mike; Münkel, Christoph; Pönitz, Kornelia

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-471-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-471-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-471-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 1

Research article

|

25 Jan 2019

Research article |

| 25 Jan 2019

Aerosol backscatter profiles from ceilometers: validation of water vapor correction in the framework of CeiLinEx2015

Matthias Wiegner, Ina Mattis, Margit Pattantyús-Ábrahám, Juan Antonio Bravo-Aranda, Yann Poltera, Alexander Haefele, Maxime Hervo, Ulrich Görsdorf, Ronny Leinweber, Josef Gasteiger, Martial Haeffelin, Frank Wagner, Jan Cermak, Katerina Komínková, Mike Brettle, Christoph Münkel, and Kornelia Pönitz

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Jan 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Oct 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Interactive comment on “Aerosol backscatter profiles from ceilometers: validation of water vapor correction in the framework of CeiLinEx2015” by Matthias Wiegner et al.', Chengcai Li, 16 Dec 2018
- AC1: 'reply to both reviewers', Matthias Wiegner, 10 Jan 2019
- AC3: 'revised version with changes', Matthias Wiegner, 10 Jan 2019
RC2: 'Referee's comments', Tianshu Zhang, 24 Dec 2018
- AC2: 'reply to both reviewers (same as AC-1)', Matthias Wiegner, 10 Jan 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Matthias Wiegner (deceased) on behalf of the Authors (10 Jan 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (15 Jan 2019) by Keding Lu

I think you have done a nice work to revise and answer the two referees' questions. Nevertheless, the third revewer also reponsed when the discussion was just closed. So I would like to paste below for your further considerdation:
(1) All figures are lacking of legends. It is thus very challenging to read through this manuscript. (I see now you already corrected for this according to previous comments)
(2) The authors define the minimum of the absolute value of the slope dF/dz as the criterion for a correct treatment of the water vapor absorption. Should not the maximum of the absolute value be used? Under this circumstance, a small value of dF/dz indicates a correct treatment of the water vapor absorption?
(3) A figure showing the curve of dF/dz should be given to better illustrate the meanings of dF/dz. From my point of view, the value of ∆F seems to be more appropriate for the criterion for a correct treatment of the water vapor absorption.
(4) “For the other ceilometers the water vapor 5 validation is acceptable only for the CL31-2. The quite different results for the two CL31 ceilometers shows that obviously difference occur even if the same type of ceilometer is evaluated.” Why could the result be different even for the same type ceilometer? What would be the potential reason for this?
In the conclusion section,
(5) “the CS135 no generally valid conclusions could be found” . Could the authors comment more about this? Does this mean that the CS135 ceilometer does not operate properly?
(6) “Anyway, in all cases uncertainties remain as long as the emitted spectrum of the laser is unknown.” How much is the contribution of the wavelength variation of the laser to the uncertainties?

Hide

AR by Matthias Wiegner (deceased) on behalf of the Authors (16 Jan 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Many ceilometers are influenced by water vapor absorption in the spectral range around 910 nm. Thus, a correction is required to retrieve aerosol optical properties. Validation of this correction scheme was performed in the framework of CeiLinEx2015 for several ceilometers with good agreement for Vaisala's CL51 ceilometer. For future applications we recommend monitoring the emitted wavelength and providing dark measurements on a regular basis to be able to correct for signal artifacts.