Deliverable WP2 / D2.11 (M42) WP2- NA2: Remote sensing of vertical aerosol distribution Deliverable D2.11: Report on 2nd IC campaign

Transcription

1 WP2- NA2: Remote sensing of vertical aerosol distribution Deliverable D2.11: Report on 2nd IC campaign

2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction MUSA (reference lidar system) Inter-comparison MALIA - MUSA October MALIA Day time intercomparison 17. October Night time intercomparison 17. October Inter-comparison Lecce lidar - MUSA October Lecce lidar system Intercomparison 23. October Inter-comparison Minsk MSTL-2 with LMR Introduction Figure 1.1 EARLINET lidar stations (2014) The many lidar systems within EARLINET are all home- or custom-made, and hence very different. From small, portable, single wavelength lidar systems to huge, stationary, multi-channel lidar systems with several telescopes to better cover the far and near ranges. Furthermore, as most lidar systems are research instruments, they are continuously developing and changing. A common quality assurance strategy can not cover all the details of all systems, but must focus on some main paramet ers. One can evaluate the quality of a measurement instrument by either comparing a measured quantity

3 with a known quantity like a standard target, or one compares with the outcome of a standard meas urement instrument of the same target. For lidar systems both standards do not exist neither a standard target, nor a standard instrument. In the frame of EARLINET-ASOS the activity NA2.2 (Quality Assurance) had been established to de velop tools for testing the accuracy and the temporal stability of the quality of the lidar systems. The developed internal check-up tools can be applied to all lidar systems. The near range limit (overlap function) is checked with the telecover test, and the far range capability and accuracy with the Rayleigh fit test. The trigger-delay (zero-bin) test verifies the correct range correction, which is very important in the near range below about 1 km range, and the dark measurement and pulse gener ator measurements deal with signal distortions. These tests are performed yearly with every lidar system and with every signal channel, and the results are documented in yearly ACTRIS "reports on internal hardware quality checks". Regarding the overall quality check, direct lidar inter-comparisons are scheduled during ACTRIS for all lidar systems not checked in this way within the last five years. For direct lidar inter-comparisons two or more lidar systems are located close to each other to measure the same atmosphere during the same time periods. Although the lidars are located close to each other, the measured atmospheric volume is never exactly the same, and the intercomparison between systems is often complicated by the intrinsic differences of the systems (at least one must be moveable), which are e.g. different measurement ranges, different sampling rates, and different analysis software packages. Sometimes the weather conditions during the limited intercomparison campaigns can be unfortunate, so that the inter-compared signals cannot reveal the desired details. Furthermore, such direct lidar intercomparisons are costly regarding man power and money, and cannot be repeated regularly. Three transportable EARLINET lidar systems are currently available as reference lidar systems, which have shown their outstanding quality and temporal stability in several inter-comparisons. These are the MULIS and POLIS lidar systems of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany, and the MUSA lidar system of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto di Metodologie per l'analisi Ambientale, Potenza, Italy.

4 2 MUSA (reference lidar system) The MUSA lidar system of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l'analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA) in Potenza / Italia was selected as an EARLINET reference lidar system during the direct intercomparison of twelve EARLINET lidar systems during EARLI09 [Wandiger et al., EARLINET instrument intercomparison campaigns: overview on strategy and results, Atmos. Meas.Tech. Discuss., in preparation, 2014]. MUSA signals at all wavelengths showed deviations <5% from the wheigthed mean of all the lidar sytems. Figure 2.1 The MUSA lidar in the mobile container. Figure 2.2 Optical setup of the MUSA lidar.

5 Table 2.1 Specifications of the MUSA reference lidar from the EARLINET handbook of instruments.

6 3 Inter-comparison MALIA - MUSA October 2013 The MALIA lidar system of the Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per la Scienze Fisiche della Materia (CNISM) in Napoli/Italia was inter-compared with the MUSA referece lidar of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l'analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA) during the measurement campaign in Napoli CNISM NALI13 (Napoli Lidar Intercomparison 2013) between 1418 October MALIA MUSA Figure 3.1 The MALIA and MUSA lidar systems in their containers. 3.1 MALIA Table 3.1 Main specifications of the MALIA lidar.

7 Figure 3.2 Optical setup of the MALIA lidar.

8 Table 3.2 Full specifications of the MALIA lidar from the EARLINET handbook of instruments.

9 3.2 Day time intercomparison 17. October 2013 Figure 3.3 Quicklook of the atmospheric situation during the daytime intercomparison period (red rectangle) on Figure 3.4 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 355 nm on between 11:45 and 12:04 UT.

10 Figure 3.5 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 532 nm (parallel polarization) on between 11:45 and 12:04 UT. Figure 3.6 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 532 nm (perpendicular polarization) on between 11:45 and 12:04 UT.

11 3.3 Night time intercomparison 17. October 2013 Figure 3.7 Quicklook of the atmospheric situation during the nighttime intercomparison period (red rectangle) on Figure 3.8 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 355 nm on between 23:03 and 00:06 UT.

12 Figure 3.9 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 532 nm (parallel polarization) on between 23:03 and 00:06 UT. Figure 3.10 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 532 nm (perpendicular polarization) on between 23:03 and 00:06 UT.

13 Figure 3.11 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 387 nm on between 23:03 and 00:06 UT Figure 3.12 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the MALIA from the MUSA signal at 607 nm on between 23:03 and 00:06 UT

14 4 Inter-comparison Lecce lidar - MUSA October 2013 The Lecce lidar system of the University of Salento, Lecce, Italia, was inter-compared with the MUSA referece lidar of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l'analisi Ambien tale (CNR-IMAA) during the measurement campaign in Lecce (Lecce Lidar Intercomparison 2013) between October MUSA LECCE system Figure 4.1 The Lecce lidar in the University building with roof window and the MUSA lidar systems in the container. 4.1 Lecce lidar system Table 4.1 Main specifications of Lecce lidar system.

15 Figure 4.2Optical setup of the Lecce lidar system.

16 Table 4.2 Full specifications of the Lecce lidar from the EARLINET handbook of instruments.

17 4.2 Intercomparison 23. October 2013 Figure 4.3 Quicklook of the atmospheric situation during the intercomparison period (red rectangle) on Figure 4.4 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the Lecce lidar from the MUSA signal at 355 nm on between 20:39 and 21:06 UT. Calculated molecular backscatter signal from radiosonde data Brindisi airport 00 UT for comparison.

18 Figure 4.5 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the Lecce lidar from the MUSA signal at 387 nm on between 20:39 and 21:06 UT. Calculated molecular backscatter signal from radiosonde data Brindisi airport 00 UT for comparison. Figure 4.6 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the Lecce lidar from the MUSA signal at 532 nm on between 20:39 and 21:06 UT. Calculated molecular backscatter signal from radiosonde data Brindisi airport 00 UT for comparison.

19 Figure 4.7 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the Lecce lidar from the MUSA signal at 607 nm on between 20:39 and 21:06 UT. Calculated molecular backscatter signal from radiosonde data Brindisi airport 00 UT for comparison. Figure 4.8 Attenuated backscatter signals and relative deviation of the Lecce lidar from the MUSA signal at 1064 nm on between 20:39 and 21:06 UT. Calculated molecular backscatter signal from radiosonde data Brindisi airport 00 UT for comparison.

20 5 Inter-comparison Minsk MSTL-2 with LMR The Stepanov Institute of Physics (IPNASB) in Minsk, Belarus, operates two lidar systems: the mobile LMR, and the stationary MSTL-2. The LMR-mobile lidar participated in the EARLI09 intercomparison of twelve lidar systems in Leipzig, Germany, in The both lidars were intercompared in Minsk on :00 16:07. Table 5.1 Full specifications of the MSTL-2-lidar from the EARLINET handbook of instruments.

21 Table 5.2 Full specifications of the LMR-mobile lidar from the EARLINET handbook of instruments.

22 Figure 5.1 Attenuated backscatter signals (left) and relative deviation (right) between the LMR and MSTL-2 lidar systems at 355 nm on between 16:00 and 16:07. Figure 5.2 Attenuated backscatter signals (left) and relative deviation (right) between the LMR and MSTL-2 lidar systems at 532 nm on between 16:00 and 16:07. Figure 5.3 Attenuated backscatter signals (left) and relative deviation (right) between the LMR and MSTL-2 lidar systems at 1064 nm on between 16:00 and 16:07.