<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-11-3297-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Airborne wind lidar observations over the North Atlantic in 2016
for the pre-launch validation of the satellite mission Aeolus</article-title><alt-title>Airborne wind lidar observations over the North Atlantic</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Airborne wind lidar observations over the North Atlantic}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{O. Lux et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Lux</surname><given-names>Oliver</given-names></name>
          <email>oliver.lux@dlr.de</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1491-0323</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Lemmerz</surname><given-names>Christian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Weiler</surname><given-names>Fabian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Marksteiner</surname><given-names>Uwe</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Witschas</surname><given-names>Benjamin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7993-1470</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Rahm</surname><given-names>Stephan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Schäfler</surname><given-names>Andreas</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6165-6623</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Reitebuch</surname><given-names>Oliver</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8503-0094</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Institut für
Physik der Atmosphäre, <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Oberpfaffenhofen 82234, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Oliver Lux (oliver.lux@dlr.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>11</day><month>June</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>11</volume>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <fpage>3297</fpage><lpage>3322</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>18</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>22</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>7</day><month>May</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>23</day><month>May</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e143">In preparation of the satellite mission Aeolus carried
out by the European Space Agency, airborne wind lidar observations have been
performed in the frame of the North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact
Experiment (NAWDEX), employing the prototype of the satellite instrument,
the ALADIN Airborne Demonstrator (A2D). The direct-detection Doppler wind
lidar system is composed of a frequency-stabilized Nd:YAG laser operating at
355 nm, a Cassegrain telescope and a dual-channel receiver. The latter
incorporates a Fizeau interferometer and two sequential Fabry–Pérot
interferometers to measure line-of-sight (LOS) wind speeds by analysing both
Mie and Rayleigh backscatter signals. The benefit of the complementary
design is demonstrated by airborne observations of strong wind shear related
to the jet stream over the North Atlantic on 27 September and 4 October
2016, yielding high data coverage in diverse atmospheric conditions. The
paper also highlights the relevance of accurate ground detection for the
Rayleigh and Mie response calibration and wind retrieval. Using a detection
scheme developed for the NAWDEX campaign, the obtained ground return signals
are exploited for the correction of systematic wind errors. Validation of
the instrument performance and retrieval algorithms was conducted by
comparison with DLR's coherent wind lidar which was operated in parallel,
showing a systematic error of the A2D LOS winds of less than
0.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and random errors from 1.5
(Mie) to 2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Rayleigh).</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e177">Over the last decade, Doppler wind lidar systems (Reitebuch, 2012a) have
emerged as a versatile tool for the range-resolved detection of wind shears
(Shangguan et al., 2017), aircraft wake vortices (Köpp et al., 2004;
Dolfi-Bouteyre et al., 2009), wind and temperature turbulence (Banakh et
al., 2014) and gravity waves (Witschas et al., 2017), amongst other
applications. In particular, direct-detection wind lidars have been
demonstrated to provide accurate wind information from ground up to
altitudes of 60 km (Dou et al., 2014) or even beyond (Baumgarten, 2010;
Hildebrand et al., 2012). The most ambitious endeavour in this context is
the upcoming satellite mission Aeolus of the European Space Agency (ESA),
which strives for the continuous global observation of atmospheric wind
profiles employing the first ever satellite-borne Doppler wind lidar
instrument ALADIN (Atmospheric LAser Doppler INstrument) (ESA, 2008;
Stoffelen et al., 2005). Being a part of ESA's Living Planet Programme,
Aeolus will significantly contribute to the improvement in numerical weather
prediction (NWP), as it will support to close the gap in wind profile data
coverage, especially over the oceans, which has been identified as one of
the major deficiencies in the current Global Observing System (Baker et al.,
2014; Andersson, 2016). For this purpose, it will provide one line-of-sight
(LOS) component of the horizontal wind vector from ground throughout the
troposphere up to the lower stratosphere (about 27 km) with a vertical
resolution of 0.25 to 2 km, depending on altitude and precision of
1 to 3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (ESA, 2016; Reitebuch,
2012b). The obtained data will allow for greater accuracy of the initial
atmospheric state in NWP models and thus improve the quality of<?pagebreak page3298?> weather
forecasts (Tan and Andersson, 2005) as well as the understanding of
atmospheric dynamics and climate processes (ESA, 2008). As a secondary
product, the wind lidar system, which is scheduled for launch in 2018, will
provide information on cloud top heights and on the vertical distribution of
clouds and aerosol properties such as backscatter and extinction
coefficients (Flamant et al., 2008; Ansmann et al., 2007).</p>
      <p id="d1e192">Over the past years, a prototype of the Aeolus payload, the ALADIN Airborne
Demonstrator (A2D), has been developed and deployed in several field
experiments, aiming at pre-launch validation of the satellite instrument and
at performing wind lidar observations under various atmospheric conditions
(Reitebuch et al., 2009; Marksteiner et al., 2011,
2017). Most recently, in autumn of 2016, the A2D was employed in the frame
of the North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment (NAWDEX)
(Schäfler et al., 2018). Based in Keflavík, Iceland, this
international field campaign had the overarching goal to investigate the
influence of diabatic processes, related to clouds and radiation, on the
evolution of the North Atlantic jet stream. Accurate wind speed observations
of the North Atlantic jet stream form the basis for quantifying effects of
disturbances for downstream propagation and related high-impact weather in
Europe. For this purpose, four research aircraft equipped with diverse
payloads were employed, which allowed for the observation of a large set of
atmospheric parameters using a multitude of state-of-the-art remote sensing
instruments, while ground stations delivered a comprehensive suite of
additional measurements to complement the meteorological analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e195">With a view to the forthcoming Aeolus mission, the NAWDEX campaign was an
ideal platform for extending the wind data set obtained with the A2D, as it
offered the opportunity to perform wind measurements in dynamically complex
scenes, including strong wind shear and varying cloud conditions.
Furthermore, multiple instrument calibrations, which are a prerequisite for
accurate wind retrieval, could be conducted over ice, namely the Vatnajökull
glacier in Iceland, ensuring high signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) of the ground
return and thus low systematic errors. In addition, the large-scale
cooperation of atmospheric research groups from around the world was
beneficial for the preparation of the upcoming launch of Aeolus.</p>
      <p id="d1e198">Among the 14 research flights conducted in the frame of NAWDEX, the two
flights performed on 27 September and on 4 October 2016 were especially
interesting with regard to the instrument-driven goals of the campaign.
While the former flight was characterized by exceptionally high wind speeds
and strong wind shear to be sampled by the A2D, the latter one provided
ground visibility which allowed for the analysis of ground return signals.
In general, analysis of the ground return offers many possibilities for
improving the performance of lidar instruments. Recently, Amediek and Wirth (2017) introduced a method for quantifying laser pointing uncertainties in
airborne and spaceborne lidar instruments which is based on the comparison
of ground elevations derived from the lidar ranging data with elevation data
from a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM). Regarding airborne wind
lidar and radar systems, ground echoes can be exploited to account for
systematic pointing errors and to determine the mounting angles of the
instrument. Here, the ground surface is used as a zero wind reference, which
allows us to estimate the contribution of the aircraft motion to the actual
atmospheric wind measurement and hence to correct for inaccuracies in the
aircraft attitude data as well as in the instrument's alignment (Bosart et
al., 2002; Kavaya et al., 2014; Chouza et al., 2016a; Weiler, 2017).
Accurate zero wind correction (ZWC), however, requires precise
differentiation between atmospheric and ground return signals in order to
prevent systematic errors. This is particularly true for the A2D (and
ALADIN) due to its coarse vertical resolution of several hundred metres.
Hence, in contrast to previous A2D airborne campaigns, an enhanced scheme
for the detection of ground return signals was developed for NAWDEX.</p>
      <p id="d1e202">The paper is organized as follows. First, the operation principle of the
system is described with a focus on the complementary design of the
instrument comprising two different receiver channels, which allow for the
analysis of both particle and molecular backscatter signals. The subsequent
section is devoted to the Rayleigh and Mie response calibrations, which
represent an essential part of the data analysis. Here, the implemented
ground detection method used for the A2D data analysis is introduced.
Comparison with the approach taken in previous campaigns reveals the
influence of the surface albedo on the quality of Rayleigh and Mie response
calibrations and highlights the necessity of proper ground detection.
Afterwards, wind observations performed with the A2D during the two
above-mentioned NAWDEX flights are presented, demonstrating the ability of
the lidar system to provide wind profiles with broad data coverage under
various atmospheric conditions. Evaluation of the data accuracy and
precision is conducted by comparing the measured wind speeds with those
obtained by DLR's coherent wind lidar system (Weissmann et al., 2005;
Witschas et al., 2017), which was operated in parallel from the same aircraft
as a reference system. Finally, ZWC based on the refined ground detection
scheme is shown to provide a significant reduction of the systematic wind
error for the second flight.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e207">Schematic of the ALADIN Airborne Demonstrator (A2D) wind lidar
instrument consisting of an injection-seeded, frequency-tripled laser
transmitter, a Cassegrain telescope, front optics and a dual-channel
receiver. PLL: phase locked loop; SHG: second harmonic generator; THG: third
harmonic generator; IS: integrating sphere; FC: fibre coupler; BEX: beam
expander; EOM: electro-optic modulator; FPI: Fabry–Pérot interferometer;
ACCD: accumulation charge-coupled device.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f01.pdf"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>The A2D direct-detection wind lidar system</title>
      <p id="d1e222">The A2D wind lidar is composed of a pulsed, frequency-stable, ultraviolet
(UV) laser transmitter incorporating a reference laser system, a Cassegrain
telescope, a configuration of optical elements (front optics) to spatially
overlap a small portion of the outgoing radiation with the return signals
from the atmosphere and the ground, and a dual-channel receiver including
detectors. A schematic of the lidar is depicted in<?pagebreak page3299?> Fig. 1. The individual
components will be described in the following.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Laser transmitter, telescope and front optics</title>
      <p id="d1e230">The laser transmitter of the A2D is based on a frequency-tripled Nd:YAG
master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) system, generating 20 ns pulses
(full width at half maximum, FWHM) at 354.89 nm wavelength. The
injection-seeded laser, which uses an active frequency stabilization
technique, provides single-frequency UV pulses with energy of 60 mJ at 50 Hz
repetition rate (3.0 W average power), while showing
near-diffraction-limited beam quality. Concerning the spectral
characteristics, the bandwidth of the transmitted UV laser pulses is 50 MHz
(FWHM), while the pulse-to-pulse frequency stability is approximately 3 MHz
(root mean square). A comprehensive description of the laser transmitter configuration
and its performance is provided in Lemmerz et al. (2017) and Schröder et al. (2007).</p>
      <p id="d1e233">In the last years, particular attention has been devoted to the cavity
control mechanism which ensures high single-frequency operation stability
even under vibration conditions. In addition to the strict requirements in
terms of frequency stability, a further challenge is imposed by the
necessity to trigger the receiver electronics about 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>s before the
laser pulse emission with an error of less than 100 ns. Therefore, a
dedicated active frequency stabilization technique was developed which is
based on the ramp–delay–fire method (Nicklaus et al., 2007). Fast detection
of the master oscillator cavity resonances with the seed laser frequency
enabled effective compensation of higher-frequency vibrations, while
providing a sufficiently early trigger for the detector electronics with a
timing stability of around 80 ns (Lemmerz et al., 2017). The long lead time
of the detector electronics is due to an electronic preconditioning process
of the accumulating charged-coupled device (ACCD) arrays described in
Sect. 2.2. Although ACCDs of the same type are used for the satellite
instrument, the preconditioning process is not an issue here, since the
round-trip laser pulse travel time from the satellite to the first
atmospheric range gate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5 ms) is sufficiently long.</p>
      <p id="d1e250">Measurement of the transmitted laser frequency and calibration of the
frequency-dependent transmission of the receiver spectrometers are
prerequisite for accurate wind retrieval. Therefore, a small portion of the
pulsed UV laser radiation, referred to as internal reference, is collected
by an integrating sphere, coupled into a multi-mode fibre (200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m core
diameter) and guided to the receiver via the front optics, while allowing
adjustable signal levels by using a variable fibre attenuator (not shown in Fig. 1). Another small fraction of the beam is directed to a
wavelength meter (HighFinesse, WS Ultimate 2) with a relative accuracy of
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in order to monitor the UV frequency of the outgoing laser pulse.</p>
      <p id="d1e272">The spatial properties of the high-energy laser were characterized prior to
the NAWDEX campaign according to the ISO 11146 standard (ISO, 2005),
yielding a beam quality factor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of 1.1 for both the
major and minor beam axis. As a result, after passing through the beam
expander, the collimated beam showed a full-angle divergence (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, containing &gt; 99 % of the energy) of 98
and 102 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>rad at 4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> beam diameters of 7.3 and 7.1 mm for
the two axes.</p>
      <p id="d1e315">The UV laser is transmitted into the atmosphere via a piezo-electrically
controlled mirror that is attached to the frame of a Cassegrain-type
telescope, as shown in Fig. 1.<?pagebreak page3300?> In contrast to ALADIN that incorporates a
1.5 m diameter telescope and will operate at an off-nadir pointing angle of
35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the A2D employs a 0.2 m telescope which is oriented at an
off-nadir angle of 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The convex spherical secondary mirror of
the telescope collects the backscattered light and guides it to the front
optics of the A2D receiver assembly. The structural design of the telescope
causes a range-dependent overlap function which has to be considered in the
wind retrieval as it reduces the backscatter signal (Paffrath, 2006; Paffrath et al., 2009).</p>
      <p id="d1e336">Aside from a narrowband UV bandpass filter (FWHM: 1.0 nm) which blocks the
broadband solar background spectrum, the front optics include an
electro-optic modulator (EOM). The EOM is used to avoid saturation of the
ACCD by shutting the atmospheric path for several <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>s after
transmission of the laser pulse, thus preventing strong backscattered light
produced close to the instrument (up to about 1 km) from being incident on
the detectors. In this way, the EOM temporally separates the atmospheric
signal from the internal reference signal. The latter is injected into the
front optics assembly via the aforementioned multi-mode fibre, so that both
signals enter the spectrometer optics on equal paths. In addition, active
stabilization of the laser beam pointing is realized by a co-alignment
control loop. For this purpose, a portion of the backscattered signal
passing through the front optics is imaged onto a UV camera (SONY XC-EU50CE)
to monitor the horizontal and vertical position of the centre of gravity
(CoG) of the beam. A reference position (CoG<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>CoG<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is defined and
a feedback loop involving three piezo-actuators mounted on the last laser
transmit mirror is applied to actively stabilize the co-alignment of the
transmit and receive path of the laser beam. In this way, variations in the
incidence angle of the atmospheric return signals on the receiver
spectrometers are reduced. This is crucial for accurate wind measurements,
especially for the Rayleigh channel, as angular variations of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>rad
with respect to the 200 mm telescope diameter and a field of view (FOV) of
100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>rad introduce errors of the horizontal wind speeds of up to
0.4 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, as derived from optical simulations and
experiments (DLR, 2016). It should be noted that active stabilization of the
transmit–receive co-alignment is not required for the satellite instrument,
since the same telescope is used for transmission of the laser beam and
reception of the backscattered signals.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Dual-channel receiver and detectors</title>
      <p id="d1e403">The receiver optics of both the satellite instrument and the A2D are almost
identical and consist of two different spectrometers, as shown on the
right-hand side of Fig. 1. Two sequential Fabry–Pérot interferometers
(FPIs) are employed for measuring the Doppler frequency shift of the
broadband Rayleigh backscatter signal from molecules, whereas a Fizeau
interferometer is used for determining the Doppler shift of the narrowband
Mie signal originating from cloud and aerosol backscattering. Detection of
the two signals is realized by using two ACCDs which allow for data acquisition in 24 range gates, where the
vertical resolution within one profile can be varied from 296 m to about
2 km.</p>
      <p id="d1e406">The wind measurement principle of the A2D wind lidar system is based on
detecting frequency differences between the emitted and the backscattered
laser pulses. Due to the Doppler effect, the frequency <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
outgoing pulse is shifted upon backscattering from particles (cloud
droplets, aerosols) and molecules which move with the ambient wind. The
frequency shift in the backscattered signal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Doppler</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
proportional to the wind speed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> along the laser beam LOS: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Doppler</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> being the speed of
light. For an emission frequency of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 844.75 THz (354.89 nm vacuum
wavelength), a LOS wind speed of 1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> translates to a
frequency shift of 5.63 MHz which corresponds to a wavelength shift of
2.37 fm. The required accuracy of the frequency measurement is hence on the
order of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to measure wind speeds with an accuracy of 1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Owing to the large difference in spectral width of the Mie
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 MHz) and Rayleigh (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.8 GHz at 355 nm and
293 K) atmospheric backscatter signals, two different techniques are applied
for deriving the Doppler frequency shift from the two spectral contributions
separately.</p>
      <p id="d1e559">The measurement principle of the Rayleigh channel relies on the double-edge
technique (Chanin et al., 1989; Garnier and Chanin, 1992; Flesia and Korb,
1999; Gentry et al., 2000) and involves two bandpass filters (A and B) which
are placed symmetrically around the frequency of the emitted laser pulse, as
illustrated in Fig. 2a. The width and spacing of the filter transmission
curves (free spectral range (FSR): 10.95 GHz, FWHM: 1.78 GHz, spacing:
6.18 GHz) is chosen such that the maxima are close to the inflexion points
(edges) of the molecular line that is spectrally broadened by virtue of
Rayleigh–Brillouin scattering (Witschas, 2011a, b, c). The transmitted signal through each filter is proportional to the
convolution of the respective filter transmission function and the line
shape function of the atmospheric backscatter signal. Consequently, the
contrast between the return signals <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> transmitted through
filters A and B represents a measure of the frequency shift between the
emitted and backscattered laser pulse, thus defining the frequency-dependent
Rayleigh response <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M36" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Close to the filter cross point, where the transmission functions intersect,
the relationship between Rayleigh response and frequency is approximately
linear with a slope of about 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> MHz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e687"><bold>(a)</bold> Spectral distribution of the transmitted laser pulse (purple)
and the backscattered signal (black), which is composed of the narrowband Mie
and the broadband Rayleigh component. The transmission spectra of the two
FPI filters of the Rayleigh channel are shown in green, while the filled
areas illustrate the respective intensities <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">B</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
transmitted through the filters A and B for determining the Doppler shift.
<bold>(b)</bold> Operation principle of the Mie channel based on the fringe-imaging
technique.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f02.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page3301?><p id="d1e736">The determination of the Doppler shift from the narrowband Mie return signal
is based on the fringe-imaging technique (McKay, 2002) involving the
measurement of the spatial location of an interference pattern, as shown in
Fig. 2b. For this purpose, a Fizeau interferometer is used consisting of
two plane plates that are tilted by a small wedge angle of several
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>rad with respect to each other. Due to the wedge angle, the linear interference pattern
(fringe) is produced at a distinct lateral position along the wedge where
the condition for constructive interference is fulfilled. Hence, a Doppler
frequency shift of the signal results in a spatial displacement of the
fringe which is vertically imaged onto the ACCD detector, whereby the
relationship between the Doppler shift and the centroid position of the
fringe <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is approximately linear (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Doppler</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, so that the Mie response reads
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M45" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mie</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Doppler</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the Mie fringe centroid position at the frequency
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the emitted laser pulse and is referred to as Mie centre. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the shift of the Mie fringe centroid position with respect to the Mie
centre and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes the proportionality factor between the Doppler frequency
shift <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Doppler</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the resulting shift of the Mie fringe
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, thus describing the sensitivity of the Mie channel. The latter is
on the order of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 MHz pixel<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. From the Fizeau FSR of 2.2 GHz,
only a section of 1.6 GHz is recorded by the 16 pixel columns of the ACCD
(imaged spectral range), resulting in an effective LOS wind measurement
range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>145 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e956">The thinned and back-side-illuminated ACCD with 16 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 16 pixels is optimized
for operation in the UV showing a high quantum efficiency of 85 %, while
cooling to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C provides a low electronic noise level. The
electronic charges generated in the imaging zone of the device are
accumulated directly in a memory zone within the CCD chip, thus allowing for
low readout noise (Reitebuch et al., 2009). For the ACCD used in the Mie
channel, the electronic charges of all 16 rows are binned together to one
row for each range gate of each laser pulse, resulting in 16 spectral
channels of about 100 MHz width. For the Rayleigh channel, the two spots
produced by the two FPIs are imaged onto the left and right half of a second
ACCD of the same type, with the centres of the spots being separated by 8 pixels (see bottom right part of Fig. 1). As for the Mie channel, the
electronic charges of all 16 rows are binned together to one row, whereas
the signal of each Rayleigh filter is contained in 6 pixels that are summed
up in the retrieval algorithms after digitization.</p>
      <p id="d1e982">The memory zone of the ACCD contains 25 rows so that a maximum number of 25 range gates can be acquired, from which three range gates are used for
detecting the background light, the detection chain offset (DCO) and the
internal reference signal, while two range gates act as buffers for the
internal reference. The DCO is a constant electric voltage at the
analogue-to-digital converter. The atmospheric backscatter signals are
collected in the remaining 20 (so-called atmospheric) range gates. The
transfer time from the image to the memory zone limits the minimum temporal
resolution of one range gate to 2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>s, which corresponds to a range
resolution of 315 m and a height resolution of 296 m, taking account of the
20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>-off-nadir pointing of the instrument. The timing sequences of
both ACCDs are programmable, providing flexible and independent vertical
resolution for the Rayleigh and Mie wind profiles.</p>
      <p id="d1e1001">The horizontal resolution of the A2D is determined by the acquisition time
of the detection unit. Here, the signals obtained from 20 laser pulses are
accumulated to so-called <italic>measurements</italic> (duration 0.4 s), while the combination of the
signals from 35 measurements (700 pulses) constitutes one <italic>observation</italic> (duration 14 s).
Considering the time required for data read out and transfer (4 s), the
separation time between two subsequent observations thus accounts for 18 s.
For a typical ground speed of the Falcon aircraft of 200 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, this results in a horizontal resolution of 3.6 km. Note that
continuous data readout without gaps of 4 s is carried out for the satellite
instrument on Aeolus, but the concept for on-chip averaging of multiple
laser pulse returns to measurements is used as well. In the following, the
terms <italic>observation</italic> and <italic>measurement</italic> are consistently used referring to the sampling of the A2D data.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1031">Overview of the research flights of the Falcon aircraft conducted
in the frame of the NAWDEX campaign and the wind scenes performed with the
A2D. The flights on 27 September and 4 October 2016 discussed in the present work
are printed in bold. The two flights on 28 September and 15 October 2016 were
dedicated to response calibrations of the Rayleigh and Mie channel (see
Sect. 3.1), while the first two and the last two flights on 17 September and
18 October 2016 were transfer flights between Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, and the
air base in Keflavík, Iceland.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Flight</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Date</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Flight period</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Measurement</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Number of</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">no.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(UTC)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">period (UTC)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">observations</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">06:10–08:07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">06:59–07:12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">07:34–07:45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">38</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">17/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10:01–13:33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10:30–11:31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">203</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11:42–12:24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">140</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">12:43–13:07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">82</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">21/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14:00–17:17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14:56–15:27</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">100</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15:34–15:57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">78</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16:11–16:51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">134</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">23/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">07:01–10:21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">07:51–08:53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">206</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">09:14–09:53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">130</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><bold>5</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>27/09/2016</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>09:28–13:24</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>10:28–11:38</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>234</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>11:48–12:36</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>160</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10:56–14:19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">Calibration flight </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">02/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">08:31–12:01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">09:42–09:53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">38</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10:07–10:47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">136</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11:06–11:30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">80</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><bold>8</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>04/10/2016</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>08:09–11:43</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>09:00–09:44</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>147</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>09:54–10:30</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>121</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10:35–10:49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">48</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">04/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13:04–15:49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">13:58–14:51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">179</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">15:02–15:14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">41</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">09/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15:44–19:24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">16:41–17:15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">113</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">17:24–17:54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">18:18–18:58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">138</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10:05–13:34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10:53–11:07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15:24–18:44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">Calibration flight </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">18/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">08:36–11:14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">09:20–09:57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">123</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10:24–10:37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">45</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">18/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12:39–14:30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">13:33–13:53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">67</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3302?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Response calibrations and ground detection</title>
      <p id="d1e1587">The A2D direct-detection wind lidar system was employed during the NAWDEX
field experiment delivering valuable data with a view to the pre-launch
activities for the upcoming Aeolus mission as well as with regards to the
meteorological objectives of the campaign. In the framework of NAWDEX, 14 research flights have been performed with the Falcon aircraft of DLR,
including four transfer flights between Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, and the
air base in Keflavík, Iceland. An overview of the flights, wind scene
periods and the number of A2D observations is presented in Table 1. Twenty-seven flight legs with continuous sampling of wind profiles were conducted with
periods ranging from 11 min to more than 1 h, adding up to almost
15 h over the whole campaign. From the 14 research flights, 2 flights
on 28 September and 15 October 2016 were dedicated to the calibration of the
A2D instrument. This procedure represents a key part of the wind retrieval
and will be described in this chapter. Here, the focus is put on a ground
detection scheme that allows for accurate identification of ground signals
and hence reduced systematic errors of the calibration parameters.</p>
<?pagebreak page3303?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Response calibrations</title>
      <p id="d1e1595">Spectral response calibration of the A2D is a prerequisite for the wind
retrieval, since the relationship between the Doppler frequency shift of the
backscattered light, i.e. the wind speed, and the response of the two
spectrometers has to be known for the wind retrieval. In particular, proper
knowledge of the Rayleigh response for different altitudes is necessary, as
the spectral shape of the Rayleigh–Brillouin backscatter signal
significantly depends on temperature and pressure of the sampled atmospheric
volume (Witschas et al., 2014) and thus varies along the laser beam path.</p>
      <p id="d1e1598">For deriving the frequency dependency of the Rayleigh and Mie channel
spectral response, a frequency scan of the laser transmitter is carried out,
thus simulating well-defined Doppler shifts of the radiation backscattered
from the atmosphere within the limits of the laser frequency stability.
During the calibration, the contribution of (real) wind related to molecular
or particular motion along the instruments' LOS has to be eliminated, i.e.
the LOS wind speed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> needs to be zero. In practice, this is
accomplished by flying curves at a roll angle of the Falcon aircraft of
20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, resulting in approximate nadir pointing of the instrument
and hence <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LOS</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0, while assuming that the vertical wind is
negligible. Consequently, regions with expectable non-zero vertical winds,
e.g. introduced by gravity waves or convection, are avoided in this
procedure. Nadir pointing leads to a circular flight pattern of the aircraft
which is preferably located over areas with high surface albedo in the UV
spectral region (e.g. over ice), hence enabling strong ground return
intensities and, in turn, high SNR. In the course of the calibration
procedure, which takes about 24 min, highest attention has to be paid to
the minimization of all unknown contributions to the Rayleigh and Mie
response such as biases resulting from inaccurate co-alignment of the
transmit and receive path, temperature variations of the spectrometers or
frequency fluctuations of the laser transmitter.</p>
      <p id="d1e1639">During NAWDEX, six response calibrations have been carried out over Iceland,
four over the Vatnajökull glacier and two over ice-free land in the north of
the island. During each calibration, the laser frequency was tuned in steps
of 26 MHz (corresponding to 4.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over a 1.4 GHz
interval (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>125 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the Rayleigh and Mie
responses were determined after averaging over 700 pulses (1 observation)
per frequency step. While the Rayleigh response is given by the intensity
contrast function of filters A and B according to Eq. (1), the Mie response
is described by the centroid position of the Fizeau fringe according to
Eq. (2). Polynomial fitting is then performed for each individual range gate
to derive polynomial coefficients that are later fed into the wind retrieval
algorithm (Marksteiner, 2013). Here, a fifth-order polynomial was
empirically chosen for fitting the Rayleigh response curves, whereas a
linear fit is applied for the Mie response function:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" specific-use="align" content-type="subnumberedsingle"><mml:math id="M70" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3.1"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3.2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mie</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            The determined polynomial coefficients for each range gate are then used for
the calculation of the Doppler frequency shift from the Rayleigh and Mie
responses obtained for each wind observation. Since both the range gate
setting and the flight altitude generally differ between the calibration
flight and the actual wind scene, a linear interpolation is performed
between the coefficients deduced from the calibration in order to obtain the
response function for the respective bin altitudes of the wind observation.</p>
      <p id="d1e1759">For the satellite instrument, the atmospheric Rayleigh response function is
derived after adding the return signals obtained from a number of range
gates in the upper troposphere (e.g. between 6 and 16 km) in order to
increase the SNR. The selection of the appropriate range
for averaging is performed during on-ground processing and the information
for each single range gate is still included in the downlinked raw data. In
the satellite wind retrieval for the L2B product, a Rayleigh–Brillouin line
shape model is used in combination with atmospheric temperature and pressure
profiles from a NWP model (e.g. from ECWMF) to account for the
altitude-dependence of the Rayleigh response over the entire vertical
measurement range from ground to the lower stratosphere (Dabas et al., 2008;
Tan et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e1763">Unlike for molecular scattering, the backscattering of the laser radiation
from aerosols, cloud particles or hard targets does not induce a significant
spectral broadening, so that the altitude-dependent variations in
temperature and pressure have a negligible impact on the Mie response.
Therefore, in contrast to the Rayleigh response calibration, the Mie
response function determined for the ground return is sufficient for the
wind retrieval and used for all the atmospheric range gates. Due to this
fact, precise determination of the coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the ground is of utmost importance for an
accurate Mie wind retrieval. A detailed study on A2D response calibrations
and the various influencing factors that affect their quality will be
provided in a forthcoming publication. Based on a set of criteria which have
been defined over the last years, out of the six available from 2016 one
particular calibration, i.e. set of response coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, …, 5) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, was determined as the baseline for the
subsequent Rayleigh and Mie wind retrieval.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1841">Detection of ground signals with the A2D wind lidar. The sketch
shows the vertical position of three neighbouring range gates (blue, yellow
and red boxes) with respect to the ground. The ground return signals are
either contained in only one range bin <bold>(a)</bold> or distributed over two range
bins due to the range gate overlap (here shown for the Mie channel as green
and orange areas) as well as varying elevation of the ground surface within
one measurement <bold>(b)</bold>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes the atmospheric contribution to the
signal obtained from the ground bin(s). The given heights of 296 and 141 m
are related to the A2D off-nadir angle of 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f03.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Refined ground detection scheme</title>
      <p id="d1e1881">Precise identification of the ground return signals is crucial for
exploiting the information included therein. Systematic wind errors which
can be caused by changes in the alignment of the transmit–receive path or
inaccuracies in the aircraft attitude data can be reduced by applying ZWC.
Regarding the aircraft speed of the Falcon, the specification of<?pagebreak page3304?> the
incorporated GPS receiver assures an accuracy of better than
0.1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Weissmann et al., 2005). Due to the coarse
vertical resolution (hundreds of metres) of the A2D and ALADIN, ZWC based on
ground return signals is rather challenging, as the ground bin is very
likely to be contaminated by atmospheric signals. For the Mie channel,
strong aerosol backscatter close to the ground can influence the ground
speed measurement, while the SNR of the ground measurement for the Rayleigh
channel is diminished by the broad bandwidth molecular return collected from
near the ground surface. Moreover, both channels are potentially affected by
surface winds, which introduce systematic errors in the measurement of the
ground speed or sea surface with non-zero ground speed (Li et al., 2010).
This situation is aggravated by the fact that the ground signals can be
distributed over multiple range bins. First, this is due to the charge
transfer process of the ACCD, which leads to a temporal overlap in the
acquisition of two subsequent range gates of about 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>s. Laser timing
fluctuations in combination with charge transfer inefficiency during the
readout of the ACCD, especially occurring at high signal intensities, can
cause a signal spread over even more than two range gates within a
measurement and observation. Second, varying ground elevations during the
duration of one measurement (0.4 s, 20 pulses at 50 Hz repetition rate) and
laser pointing fluctuations can lead to the detection of ground signals in
multiple range gates, taking into account that the laser pulses cover a
distance of 80 m along track on the ground at an aircraft speed of
200 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 3 illustrates this circumstance for two
cases; one with ground signals completely contained in one range gate (a)
and another with ground signals distributed over two range gates (b). The
height difference between a reference ground elevation during one
measurement and the upper bin border of the highest (or first) range gate
that contains ground signals is denoted by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and represents a
measure of the atmospheric contribution to the ground signal detected by the
A2D. The reference ground elevation per measurement is derived from the
DEM ACE2, providing elevation data at a resolution
of 9 arcsec (300 m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 300 m at the Equator) (Berry et al., 2010).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1934">Ground detection during the response calibration performed over
Iceland on 15 October 2016 between 17:24 and 17:48 UTC. <bold>(a)</bold> Signal
intensities measured with the A2D Rayleigh channel versus time and the range
gates 8 to 24 on measurement level. <bold>(b)</bold> Mie signal intensity
including Rayleigh background on measurement level. The intensities are
range-corrected and scaled to the integration time of the respective range
gates. Range gates 8 to 19 have a length of 592 m, while range gates
20 to 24 have a length of 296 m. Bins with signal intensities
exceeding the maximum of the respective colour scale are printed in white.
The Rayleigh and Mie ground masks resulting from the developed ground
detection scheme are depicted in panels <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold>, respectively. White bins are
identified as ground bins and thus considered for the determination of the
ground response function.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f04.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1955">In previous A2D studies, ground detection for the calibration mode was based
on an analysis of the curtain plot depicting the Rayleigh and Mie signal
intensities after range correction and normalization to the integration time
of each range gate (see Fig. 4a and b). Here, high signal intensities
related to strong ground return become visible as white bins, as the
intensity exceeds the maximum of the respective colour scale. Ground range
gates were then specified <italic>per flight leg</italic> and the corresponding  signal intensities in the
identified range gates were summed up (Marksteiner et al., 2013). For the
example shown in Fig. 4, range gates 21 to 23 would be subjectively
selected as ground range gates in the old scheme (by visual inspection by an
experienced data analyst), since most of the white bins are found therein.
This approach leads to an underestimation of the actual ground signal which
might also be contained in adjacent range gates as well as to an additional
summation of atmospheric signal causing error-prone ground data, especially
for varying terrain during the flight leg. The imperfect differentiation
between atmospheric and ground return signals thus introduces systematic
errors in the ground response functions of both detection channels.
Concerning the Mie channel, this affects the entire wind profile, as the
ground response is used for the wind retrieval in all atmospheric range
gates as<?pagebreak page3305?> mentioned above. The old ground detection scheme was acceptable in
previous airborne campaigns where the response calibrations were performed
over flat terrain, e.g. sea ice, so that ground signals were almost
completely contained in only one range gate. However, since complex terrain
scenes were encountered in the response calibrations during NAWDEX, the
ground detection scheme was refined as explained in the following.</p>
      <p id="d1e1961">In order to derive more accurate ground speeds, a trade-off has to be found
between summing up as much ground signal as possible and minimizing the
atmospheric portion in the ground bins. For this purpose, a ground detection
algorithm <italic>on measurement level</italic> was developed (Weiler, 2017). Similar to the wind retrieval
algorithm employed for Aeolus (Reitebuch et al., 2017,
2018), it is based on a signal-gradient approach to estimate ground bin
candidates within a predefined range around the ground level which is given
by the DEM. In a range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 bins around the expected ground level
according to the DEM, the signal gradients of two adjacent bins are
calculated for each measurement and per range gate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M85" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes integrated signal intensity per measurement, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
range from the instrument to the bin centre which can be calculated from the
respective range gate integration time. In a next step, gradient thresholds
are introduced to identify the uppermost and lowermost ground bin. For the
analysed flights, thresholds of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GR</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">high</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.015 arb. units km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GR</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">low</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.015 arb. units km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (arbitrary units is abbreviated arb. units) have
been empirically found to yield consistent results for both the Rayleigh and
Mie channel. In order to avoid large atmospheric contribution to the ground
signal, another threshold <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GR</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DEM</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been implemented which analyses
the signal level of the range gate just above the DEM bin covering the
reference ground elevation. If the intensity in this bin does not make up
more than five percent of the total summed ground signal, it is not
considered for the ground signal summation. Careful analysis has shown that
ground intensities falling below that threshold have negligible influence on
the accuracy of ground response calibration curves or ground wind speeds and
thus can be omitted for the ground signal summation (Weiler, 2017). Using
this approach, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and hence the atmospheric portion of the ground
signal can be significantly diminished. The ground detection method has been
employed for the analysis of the Mie and Rayleigh response calibration data
obtained in the NAWDEX campaign and formed the basis for the ZWC applied for
the wind scenes on 4 October 2016 discussed in Sect. 4.2. Moreover, the
comparison between refined ground detection and the previous scheme allows
for the characterization of the influence of the atmospheric contamination
of the ground calibration parameters.</p>
      <p id="d1e2171">The largest influence of the refined scheme on the calibration parameters
compared to the former approach was obtained for the sixth response
calibration procedure performed during NAWDEX on 15 October 2016 between
17:24 and 17:48 UTC. The Rayleigh and Mie signal intensities measured
during the calibration are shown in Fig. 4a and b,<?pagebreak page3306?> respectively. The
calibration flight was carried out in the region around 65.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N
and 17.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, which is characterized by a mountainous and ice-free
terrain with ground elevations ranging from about 200 to 1200 m.
Consequently, ground signals were detected in four different range gates
(20 to 23) during the calibration procedure, as the Falcon aircraft
flew circular patterns over this region. While the ground response
calibration based on the old ground detection method would have summed up
all the signals contained in these four range gates for each observation,
i.e. frequency step of the calibration, the refined method only considers
those bins per measurement that fulfil the threshold conditions as explained
above. The corresponding Rayleigh and Mie ground masks illustrating the
range bins that were identified as ground bins for each measurement are
depicted in Fig. 4c and d. Due to the different sensitivities of the two
receiver channels, and thus different measured signal intensities, the two
masks are not fully identical.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2195">Rayleigh response calibration parameters obtained from the six
calibrations performed on 28 September and on 15 October 2016. The zero- and
first-order fitting parameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were derived involving the
old ground and new ground (GR) detection method (see text). The atmospheric
contribution <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Fig. 3) has been averaged over the respective
calibration period. Calibration 1 was performed using a different
alignment of the lidar system and is thus excluded from the statistical
calculations.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RRC no.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Date</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Surface</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Slope (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> MHz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col9" align="center">Intercept (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Old GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">New GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Old GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">New GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Old GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">New GR</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">detection</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">480</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">308</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.43</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.39</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">753</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">519</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.62</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">734</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">522</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.60</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.70</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">606</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">546</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.63</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.36</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice-free land</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">411</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">249</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.42</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice-free land</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">454</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">207</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.82</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.69</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.77</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">592</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">409</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.59</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Standard deviation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">157</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">166</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.68</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2672">For both channels, the atmospheric contribution is drastically reduced
resulting in more accurate response values. While the mean value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over all measurements of calibration 6 is 454 and 505 m for the
Rayleigh and Mie channel when the old ground detection technique is applied,
it is only 207 and 249 m for the new method, respectively. An overview of
the atmospheric contributions (mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all the six Rayleigh and
Mie response calibrations (RRC and MRC) using the two different ground
detection schemes is given in Tables 2 and 3. The tables also summarize the
zero- and first-order polynomial coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (referred to as intercept and slope) obtained
from fitting of the response curves according to Eqs. (3a) and (3b). The
second- and higher-order coefficients  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">{</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo mathvariant="italic">}</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2, 3, 4, 5) of the Rayleigh response function
are not given. Since calibration 1 was carried out using a different
setting of the co-alignment loop reference position (CoG<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>CoG<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(see Sect. 2.1) affecting the incidence angle of the backscattered signals
on the Rayleigh and Mie spectrometer, the resulting calibration parameters
were disregarded in the statistical calculations leading to the values
provided in Tables 2 and 3.</p>
      <p id="d1e2799">In general, larger deviations in the slope and intercept values between the
two methods are present for the Rayleigh channel. This can be explained by
the fact that the broadband Rayleigh channel is more sensitive to the
broadband atmospheric molecular background signal than the narrowband Mie
channel where the broadband atmospheric contribution leads to a nearly
constant intensity offset to the narrowband ground signals. The impact on
the Rayleigh channel is especially large in cases of low-albedo surfaces
where the atmospheric contribution to the weaker ground signals is more
pronounced. As a result, large discrepancies between the calibration
parameters obtained with the old and new method are observed for the two
last calibrations that were performed over ice-free land with low albedo in
the UV. In particular, the intercept values derived for the RRC 6
discussed before differ by as much as 1.24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Using a
typical Rayleigh response slope value of 4.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> MHz<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 2) and the conversion between Doppler
frequency shift and LOS wind speed (1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo stretchy="true" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.63 MHz) introduced in Sect. 2.2, this difference in
intercept translates to a wind speed difference of 4.8 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. That means that ground speed values determined from RRC 6
using either the old or the new ground detection method would differ by that
value. With a view to ZWC, the large discrepancy in the ground speed values
underlines the relevance of proper ground detection for the wind retrieval,
as the ground speeds are used as zero reference for the derived wind speeds.
Likewise, using the refined ground detection method for the analysis of MRC
6 results in a change in the Mie intercept values by 11.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> pixel which corresponds to a wind speed difference of
0.2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, considering a typical Mie response slope of about
100 MHz pixel<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 3).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2934">Mie response calibration parameters obtained from the six
calibrations performed on 28 September  and on 15 October 2016. The zero- and
first-order fitting parameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were derived involving the
old ground and new ground (GR) detection method (see text). The atmospheric
contribution <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Fig. 3) has been averaged over the respective
calibration period. Calibration 1 was performed using a different
alignment of the lidar system and is thus excluded from the statistical
calculations.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MRC no.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Date</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Surface</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center" colsep="1">Slope (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (MHz pixel<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col8" nameend="col9" align="center">Intercept (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> pixel) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Old GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">New GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Old GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">New GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Old GR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">New GR</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">detection</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">detection</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">436</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">383</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>98.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>98.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>119</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>116</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">729</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">613</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>116</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>116</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">28/09/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">714</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">648</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>110</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>110</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">601</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">570</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>98.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>44.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>44.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice-free land</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">384</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">274</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>96.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>96.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>70.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>69.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15/10/2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ice-free land</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">505</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">249</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>98.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>82.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>93.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">587</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">471</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>97.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>84.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>86.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Standard deviation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">145</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">193</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">29.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">29.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3552">Another aspect that becomes obvious from Tables 2 and 3 is that the spread
of intercept values between the different Rayleigh response calibrations is
reduced when applying the new ground detection method. The standard
deviation over the five RRCs 2 to 6 is 1.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
whereas it is 0.68 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the new method. Hence, depending
on the calibration used for the wind retrieval, the Rayleigh ground wind
speed varies by 3.9 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> if the old technique is applied.
This value is reduced by more than 30 % to 2.6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with
the new scheme, which is still unsatisfactorily large regarding the
consistency of Rayleigh response calibrations. For the Mie channel, no
change in the spread of the calibration parameters is evident. Nevertheless,
the new ground detection approach provides a considerable improvement in the
accuracy of the ground calibration parameters and, in turn, of the derived
ground wind speeds. With a view to the Aeolus mission, it can be concluded
that calibrations should be performed over surfaces with high albedo, like
ice surfaces, in order to minimize the impact of the atmospheric
contamination. Furthermore, the quantity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could be considered as a
quality parameter for evaluating the quality of response calibrations or
even to correct calibrations for the atmospheric contribution.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Wind retrieval and assessment of accuracy</title>
      <p id="d1e3635">This chapter discusses the wind results from two selected flights performed
on 27 September and 4 October 2016 to demonstrate the Rayleigh and Mie wind
retrieval algorithms as well as their subsequent validation by statistical
comparison with the data obtained with DLR's coherent reference wind lidar
system.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3640"><bold>(a)</bold> Flight track of the Falcon aircraft (black line) during the
research flight conducted on 27 September 2016. The wind scenes performed
from 10:28 to 11:38 and from 11:48 to 12:36 UTC are indicated in
orange and blue. The background picture is composed of a map provided by
Google Earth and satellite images from Terra MODIS (VIS channel) taken at
11:55 (right part) and 13:30 UTC (left part) (MODIS, 2017a).
<bold>(b)</bold> Geopotential height (black isolines, in dekametres) and horizontal wind
speed (colour shading) at 300 hPa on 27 September 2016, 12:00 UTC, from ECMWF
model analysis together with the flight track of the Falcon 20 aircraft.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f05.pdf"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<?pagebreak page3307?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Jet stream wind observations over the North Atlantic on 27 September
2016</title>
      <p id="d1e3661">While the instrument response calibrations were performed during two
dedicated flights over Iceland, the other 12 research flights within the
NAWDEX campaign were devoted to wind observations over the North Atlantic
region. Here, sampling of the jet stream was of particular interest with
regards to both the pre-launch activities of Aeolus and the scientific
objectives related to atmospheric dynamics. The observation of high
horizontal wind speeds and large wind gradients occurring in relation to the
jet provided an extensive characterization of the instrument over a large
operating range and accurate wind profiles for the NAWDEX science
objectives. In the context of the fourth NAWDEX intensive observation
period, the goal of the flight carried out on 27 September 2016
was to observe very high jet stream wind speeds related to the former
tropical cyclone Karl. As Karl moved towards the mid-latitudes, it
merged with an initially weak downstream cyclone and strongly intensified.
Later, at the time of the flight, the already weakened cyclone was located
between Iceland and Scotland and the zonally oriented jet stream extended
towards Scotland with horizontal wind speeds exceeding 80 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at altitudes of 9 to 10 km (see Fig. 5 and for a detailed
description of the meteorological situation refer to Schäfler et al.,
2018). To observe the high wind speeds, the Falcon aircraft flew towards the
Faroe Islands and the Outer Hebrides right into the centre of the jet stream
at a flight altitude of 11.5 km before returning to the air base in
Keflavík. The satellite image taken from the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard NASA's Terra satellite
(MODIS, 2017a), shown in Fig. 5a, depicts increased cloud coverage along
the flight track crossing the cyclone. From the total flight duration of
3 h and 56 min (09:28 to 13:24 UTC), wind observations were
conducted in the period between 10:28 and 12:36 UTC, split into two scenes
of about 1 h each.</p>
<?pagebreak page3308?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS1">
  <title>Rayleigh background subtraction and quality control</title>
      <p id="d1e3681">In the period from 11:41 to 11:47 UTC the A2D was operated at a different
mode which aimed at the detection of the Rayleigh background signal on the
Mie channel. Proper quantification of the broadband molecular return signal
transmitted through the Fizeau interferometer is important for avoiding
systematic errors in the determination of the fringe centroid position and,
in turn, in the Mie winds. Therefore, the laser frequency was tuned away by
1.1 GHz from the Rayleigh filter cross point and the Mie spectrometer centre position which define the nominal set
frequency during the wind scenes (see Fig. 2a). In this way, the laser
frequency of the emitted pulses was outside of the useful spectral range of
the Mie spectrometer, so that the fringe was not imaged onto the Mie ACCD
and only the broadband Rayleigh signal was detected on the Mie channel. The
range-dependent intensity levels per pixel were subsequently subtracted from
the measured raw Mie signal. In the near-field range gates, the measured
intensity distribution over the pixel array measured by the Mie and Rayleigh
ACCDs is substantially impacted by the central obscuration of the telescope
pupil by the secondary mirror and its supporting spider. Furthermore, the
data obtained from the near-field region is affected by the incomplete
overlap of the transmitted laser beam with the telescope FOV as
well as by the attenuation of the signals by the EOM (Paffrath et al.,
2009). Therefore, the atmospheric range gates in the region within 1.5 km
below the aircraft (range gates 5 and 6) were not considered in the
wind retrieval.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3686">Signal intensities measured for <bold>(a)</bold> the A2D Rayleigh channel and
<bold>(b)</bold> the A2D Mie channel during the flight on 27 September 2016 between
10:28 and 12:36 UTC. The intensities are range-corrected and scaled to
the integration time of the respective range gates. The background and
detection chain offset were subtracted. For the Mie channel, the Rayleigh
background signal was subtracted as explained in the text. The detection of
the Rayleigh background signal was performed between 11:41 and 11:47 UTC,
leading to a data gap in this period. <bold>(c)</bold> Mie SNR calculated according to
Eq. (3.29) in Marksteiner (2013). Bins with signal intensities exceeding the
maximum of the respective colour scale are printed in dark red.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f06.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3704">The Rayleigh as well as the Mie signal intensities after Rayleigh background
correction per observation (18 s) are shown in Fig. 6a and b,
respectively. The raw signals were first corrected for the DCO and the solar
background which are collected in two separate range gates. Moreover, a
range correction was applied taking into account that the intensity
decreases as the inverse square of the distance between the scatterer and
the detector. Finally, the integration times set for each range gate were
considered for normalizing the signal intensities per bin. Curve flights
during the flight section are manifested in altitude variations of the range
gate borders, as a change in the roll angle of the aircraft involved a
change in the off-nadir angle of the A2D. While the intensity profiles for
the Rayleigh channel essentially follow the vertical distribution of the
atmospheric molecular density, the Mie intensity profiles display the
vertical distribution of atmospheric cloud and aerosol layers along the
flight track. High Rayleigh signal intensities above 3.5 arb. units (dark
red bins in Fig. 6a) can be attributed to cloud layers at different
altitudes along the flight track which also manifest in increased Mie signal
intensities (Fig. 6b).</p>
      <p id="d1e3707">As a preparatory step of the wind retrieval, several quality control (QC)
mechanisms were applied to exclude invalid data. The detection of corrupted
measurements within one observation involved the screening for DCO outliers,
saturated pixels on the ACCDs as well as for failure of the trigger that
initiates the detector electronics. The latter causes an untimely ACCD
acquisition, and hence an incorrect allocation of the internal reference and
atmospheric return signals to their designated range gates. For the actual
wind retrieval, the wind speeds for each atmospheric range gate were
determined from the respective frequency differences to the internal
reference frequency. The frequencies were calculated from the corresponding
Rayleigh and Mie response functions (Eqs. 3a and b) derived during the
calibration mode. As a<?pagebreak page3309?> result, separate wind profiles for the Rayleigh and
Mie channel were obtained. While the Rayleigh profiles only contain valid
wind data in range bins in which purely molecular backscattering occurred,
the Mie wind profiles are composed of wind data retrieved from areas with
sufficient cloud and aerosol content. However, since the retrieval initially
produces wind values for all data bins in both channels, additional measures
had to be taken to identify and eliminate invalid wind data. The procedures
differ between the Rayleigh and Mie profiles and will be outlined in the
following sections.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS2">
  <title>Rayleigh wind profiles</title>
      <p id="d1e3716">The identification of invalid winds retrieved from the Rayleigh channel was
based on the detection of bins which were affected by particulate
backscatter from clouds or aerosols, since this Mie contamination introduces
systematic errors of the measured Rayleigh response (Dabas et al., 2008).
Therefore, as introduced in Marksteiner (2013), bins showing range-corrected and
integration time-corrected Rayleigh signal intensities that are unusually
high for pure molecular backscatter were excluded from further analysis. An
intensity threshold of 0.1 arb. units per measurement was found to be an
appropriate value for<?pagebreak page3310?> identifying Mie-contaminated bins in the Rayleigh
channel. Under clear conditions Rayleigh signal intensities on observation
level (summed over 35 measurements) are well below 3.5 arb. units (see
Fig. 6a). Due to the attenuation of the laser beam during propagation
through the clouds, the wind information obtained from the range gates below
clouds is very likely to be also derogated. Consequently, not only the cloud
bins themselves are flagged invalid but also all the bins in the range gates
below. Additionally, ground bins that were detected by the scheme described
in Sect. 3.2 as well as bins containing valid Mie wind data (see next
section) were removed from the Rayleigh wind profiles.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3721">LOS wind profiles (positive towards the instrument) measured
during the flight on 27 September 2016 between 10:28 and 12:36 UTC using
<bold>(a)</bold> the A2D Rayleigh channel and <bold>(b)</bold> the A2D Mie channel. The combination of
both channels is depicted in panel <bold>(c)</bold>, while panel <bold>(d)</bold> shows the corresponding wind
curtain obtained with the coherent 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m reference wind lidar. For
better comparison, the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wind data were adapted to the measurement
grid of the A2D. White colour represents missing or invalid data due to low
signal, e.g. in case of low aerosol loads or below dense clouds. The data
gap between 11:38 and 11:48 UTC is due to an interruption of the wind
measurement during a curve flight and a different operation mode of the A2D
instrument aiming at the detection of the Rayleigh background signals on the
Mie channel.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f07.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3757">Figure 7a shows the processed LOS Rayleigh winds plotted versus time and
altitude for the period from 10:28 to 12:36 UTC after removal of invalid
bins as described above. During the first section of the flight, the
horizontal component of the A2D LOS unit vector was nearly parallel to the
horizontal wind vector and pointing against the wind, resulting in high
positive LOS wind speeds (yellow/orange colours), whereas negative wind
speeds of comparable magnitude were measured during the second flight leg
when the LOS unit vector was oriented along the direction of the wind, i.e.
the wind was pointing away from the instrument (blue colours). The data gap
in between is due to the curve flight near the Outer Hebrides as well as the
procedure required for Rayleigh background subtraction mentioned above. The
figure also illustrates the range-dependent vertical resolution of the
instrument. For the presented flight section, the integration time of the
ACCD was set to 2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>s in the range gates 8 to 14 (9.4 to
7.7 km) and those close to the ground (22, 23); 4.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>s in the
range gates 7, 15 and 16 (6.1 km); and 8.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>s in all the
remaining atmospheric range gates, corresponding to a height resolution of
296, 592 and 1184 m, respectively. This range gate setting was the same
for the Rayleigh and Mie channel and chosen in order to resolve the wind
structure within the core of the jet stream. In this region, broad coverage
of Rayleigh winds was obtained, while mid-level clouds prevented the
acquisition of valid Rayleigh wind data on the edges of the jet below their
tops between 4 and 7 km height. In addition, high-level clouds at the
beginning of the shown flight section limited the extension of the Rayleigh
wind profiles to the range from 9 to 10 km.</p>
      <p id="d1e3781">One characteristic of the Rayleigh channel is the fluctuating wind error
from profile to profile, which becomes visible as a vertical texture in the
two-dimensional wind curtain. The underlying reason is the high sensitivity
of the Rayleigh response to variations in the incidence angle on the FPI.
Despite the active transmit–receive co-alignment loop, residual angular
variations on the order of a few <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>rad, which are due to atmospheric
turbulence and the effect of strong cloud backscatter onto the co-alignment
algorithm, cause fluctuations in the derived wind speeds of several
metres per second. The introduced error is thus correlated among the
atmospheric range gates, and the mean error varies from observation to
observation, resulting in a vertical pattern in the Rayleigh wind curtain.
Measures are being examined to reduce this fluctuation by a refined
co-alignment feedback loop, for instance, by employing a UV camera with
higher resolution in combination with an improved algorithm for determining
the centre of gravity of the backscattered laser radiation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS3">
  <title>Mie wind profiles</title>
      <p id="d1e3797">The validity of the Mie wind determined for each bin is related to the cloud
and aerosol loading in the respective range gate, and thus the signal
intensity detected on the Mie ACCD. For the proper identification of bins
with sufficient particulate backscatter return signal, the so-called Mie SNR
was defined as the quotient between the signal of the pixel with the highest
intensity, i.e. the fringe centre, and the mean over the pixels that lie
outside the fringe (Marksteiner, 2013). The Mie SNR calculated for the
studied measurement scene is depicted in Fig. 6c. Based on the SNR
profile, a threshold value was set which allowed sorting out corrupt wind
measurement bins. For the analysed wind scene, a Mie SNR threshold of 5.0
was empirically chosen in order to remove those bins where low particle
backscatter coefficients prevented the correct determination of the Mie
fringe centroid position and thus the acquisition of accurate wind speeds.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3802">Flight track of the Falcon 20 aircraft for the research
flight on 27 September 2016 together with the overlaid A2D HLOS wind
profiles measured between 10:40 and 11:38 UTC (foreground) as well as
between 11:48 and 12:12 UTC (background), whilst crossing the North
Atlantic jet stream (background image: ©2017 Google). <bold>(b)</bold> Wind
profiles from two selected observations starting at 11:28:21 and
11:54:09 UTC. The black squares indicate the mean bias per range gate based
on the comparison with wind data from the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m coherent wind lidar
(see text).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f08.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e3821">The resulting two-dimensional Mie wind curtain is shown in Fig. 7b. As
opposed to the Rayleigh channel, the Mie data coverage is rather sparse
owing to the little cloud cover and low aerosol load during the flight. Wind
data are mainly obtained from the cloudy regions mentioned above, thus
complementing the wind information gained with the Rayleigh channel. The
combination of the Rayleigh and Mie wind data, displayed in a composite
curtain in Fig. 7c, illustrates the complementarity of the two detection
channels which enables the acquisition of wind speeds under various
atmospheric conditions, hence ensuring broad data coverage for the entire
scene. In the case that valid winds are obtained for both channels, the Mie
wind is preferred due to the higher accuracy and precision of the Mie
channel for the A2D (see next sections). Figure 8a shows the combined
Rayleigh and Mie wind curtain along two flight legs in the region of the jet
stream. Here, the horizontal LOS (HLOS) wind speed is illustrated, which was
calculated from the measured LOS wind speeds and the off-nadir angle of the
instrument (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) per observation. Strong vertical wind
gradients exceeding 10 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at about 5 km altitude
become apparent in Fig. 8b, which depicts  the HLOS wind profiles from two
selected observations  starting at 11:28:21 and 11:54:09 UTC. The vertical position of the data points corresponds to the
altitude at the centre of the respective range bin. HLOS wind speeds above
80 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> were measured in the centre of the sampled jet
stream, which is in agreement with the modelled wind field shown in Fig. 5,
considering the difference in the angle between the HLOS unit vector of the
A2D and the horizontal wind vector.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3312?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS4">
  <title>Coherent wind lidar as reference system</title>
      <p id="d1e3883">Validation of the A2D instrument performance and wind retrieval algorithms
was performed by comparing the resulting wind profiles to those obtained
with DLR's well-established coherent wind lidar system emitting at 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wavelength and 500 Hz repetition rate, which was operating in parallel on
board the Falcon aircraft, providing accuracy of the horizontal wind speed of
better than 0.1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and precision of better than
1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Weissmann et al., 2005; Chouza et al., 2016b). In
contrast to the A2D, the determination of the Doppler shift by the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m lidar system relies on heterodyne detection using the instruments' seed
laser as local oscillator (Witschas et al., 2017) and thus does not rely on
any calibration procedures. Moreover, the coherent wind lidar incorporates a
scanner which allows retrieving the three-dimensional horizontal wind vector
from a number of LOS wind measurements with a vertical resolution of 100 m.
For this purpose, the instrument performs conical scans at an off-nadir
angle of 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the information from 21 azimuthal positions
is used for the wind vector retrieval. On each azimuthal position the signal
from 500 laser pulses (1 s) is averaged to obtain one LOS profile. The time
for positioning the laser at its scan starting position is around 21 s,
resulting in a total time of 42 s for one observation of the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m
wind lidar, whereas one A2D observation takes 18 s as outlined above.</p>
      <p id="d1e3941">For adequate comparison of the wind profiles measured with the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m and
the A2D wind lidar, the three-dimensional wind vectors had to be projected
onto the A2D LOS axis. This was carried out for each 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m observation
by calculating the scalar product of the measured wind vector and the mean
A2D LOS unit vector under consideration of the aircraft attitude during the
respective observation period. Furthermore, the different spatial and
temporal resolutions of the two wind lidar instruments necessitated an
adaptation of the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m measurement grid to that of the A2D. This was
accomplished by a weighted aerial interpolation algorithm (Marksteiner et
al., 2011). Here, one considers the whole two-dimensional A2D wind curtain
overlaid by the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m grid. Hence, a single A2D bin can be covered by
multiple 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m bins both horizontally and vertically. The overlapping
regions form a new composite 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m bin. The contributions of the
single 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m winds to the wind value allocated to the composite bin
are weighted by the overlap of the respective 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m bins with the
regarded A2D bin. In this way, the A2D and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wind profiles can be
compared on a bin-to-bin basis.</p>
      <p id="d1e4008">In order to reduce the risk of large discrepancies between the interpolated
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wind and the compared A2D wind in case of low coverage, a minimum
overlap of the compared bins (coverage ratio threshold) has been introduced
as a QC parameter. For the considered wind scene, a threshold
value of 25 % was found to provide an optimal trade-off between
comparability and quantity of the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m bins, thus yielding an
acceptable number (nearly 1000) of representative composite 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m bins
used for comparison. Increasing the coverage ratio threshold, e.g. to
80 %, would have reduced the number of bins to less than 500 without
significant change in the parameters resulting from the statistical
comparison. Furthermore, proper analysis of the Rayleigh winds with a
sufficient number of compared bins (&gt; 300) required a threshold
of less than 45 %.</p>
      <p id="d1e4032">The projected LOS wind curtain obtained from the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL after
adaptation to the A2D measurement grid is depicted in Fig. 7d. Since the
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL purely relies on<?pagebreak page3313?> particulate backscatter, the data coverage
is similar to that of the A2D Mie channel, resulting in a large overlap of
the two data types. Consequently, the number of bins available for
comparison is greater than for the Rayleigh channel. However, the
availability of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wind data from the upper region of the jet
stream between 9 and 10 km altitude allows for the comparison of Rayleigh
wind data over a broad range of wind speeds.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4060">Results of the statistical comparison between the A2D and the
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m LOS wind data measured on 27 September 2016. The statistical comparison
has been performed for the Rayleigh and Mie wind profiles (see corresponding
scatterplots in Fig. 9) as well as for the combined wind curtain as shown in
Fig. 7c.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Statistical parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rayleigh winds</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mie winds</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Combined winds</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of compared bins</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">381</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">562</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">943</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of removed bins due to gross error (&gt; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.97</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Slope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.002 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.012</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.004 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.009</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.002 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.008</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Intercept <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.49 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.21 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean bias</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.49 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.21 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Standard deviation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.0 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1.4826 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> median absolute deviation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.8 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4463"><bold>(a)</bold> A2D LOS wind speed determined with the Rayleigh (dots) and Mie
(diamonds) channel versus the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m LOS wind speed for comparison of
the wind data measured during the flight on 27 September 2016 between
10:28 and 12:36 UTC (see corresponding curtains in Fig. 7a, b and d). The scatterplot is obtained by adaptation of the different measurement
grids of the two systems based on a weighted interpolation algorithm and a
subsequent bin-to-bin comparison. The corresponding probability density
functions for the wind differences (A2D–2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) are shown in panels <bold>(b)</bold> and
<bold>(c)</bold> for the Rayleigh and Mie channel, respectively. The solid lines
represent Gaussian fits with the given centres and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> widths 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f09.pdf"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS5">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Statistical comparison of A2D and 2\,{$\mathrm{µ}$}m DWL winds}?><title>Statistical comparison of A2D and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL winds</title>
      <p id="d1e4534">The statistical comparison of the Rayleigh and Mie winds with the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL data from the discussed flight section is visualized in Fig. 9a.
Here, the A2D winds are plotted versus the corresponding interpolated 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m winds, resulting in a cloud of data points that ideally lie on the dashed
line representing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The non-weighted linear fit
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through the real data provides
values for the slope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and intercept <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> that generally deviate from the ideal
result <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0. The statistical values derived from the
scatterplot are summarized in Table 4, showing that the fitting parameters
for both Rayleigh and Mie channels only slightly deviate from the ideal case
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>|</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>|</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The standard error of the slope given in the table was calculated
according to

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" specific-use="align" content-type="subnumberedsingle"><mml:math id="M260" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5.1"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mtext>with</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5.2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              being the residuals of the linear regression. It should be noted that the
parameters derived from the statistical comparison are influenced by the
systematic and random errors of both the A2D and the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m lidar.
However, since the latter provides high accuracy and precision as stated
above, the total errors are dominated by the systematic and random error of
the A2D.</p>
      <p id="d1e4899">Aside from the standard deviation, the median absolute deviation (MAD) was
determined as an additional parameter for evaluating the random error of the
A2D wind speed measurements. It is defined as the median of the absolute
variations of the measured wind speeds from the median of the wind speed
differences:

                  <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M262" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MAD</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">median</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="" open="["><mml:mfenced open="|" close=""><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mfenced></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mfenced open="" close="]"><mml:mfenced close="|" open=""><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">median</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

              The MAD represents a robust measure of the variability of the measured wind
speeds and is more immune to outliers compared to the standard deviation
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. If the random wind error is normally distributed, the MAD value
is related to the standard deviation as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.4826 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> MAD. The latter quantity is referred to as <italic>scaled MAD</italic>.</p>
      <p id="d1e5037">Six bins with wind speed differences <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> larger than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> were identified as gross errors in the
Rayleigh data set and thus removed from the sample. Gross errors are assumed
to be uniformly distributed over the wind speed measurement range and add to
the Gaussian-distributed random errors. As described in the Mission
Requirement Document of the satellite mission (ESA, 2016), the error model
for Aeolus also separates between these two different errors and defines a
requirement on the probability of gross outliers (&lt; 5 %). In
order to identify gross errors in the Aeolus wind results, an estimation of
the random error is provided for each observation and used as QC parameter. In addition, NWP centres usually apply a QC (or even
variational QC) during the assimilation of the wind products by comparing it
with best guess values (background) from the model.</p>
      <p id="d1e5088">The scatterplot illustrates the good agreement of the A2D and 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m
DWL data over the range of LOS wind speeds from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>22
to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>26 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. For both detection channels the correlation
coefficient is as high as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.97. Aside from the different wind speed
span, the Rayleigh and Mie winds primarily differ with respect to the mean
bias (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over all data points representing the
accuracy of the instrument. Here, the Mie wind bias almost vanishes
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is due to the fact that the A2D
winds are nearly symmetrically distributed about the reference 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m
winds, leading to positive and negative deviations of similar magnitude
which compensate for each other.</p>
      <p id="d1e5200">For the Rayleigh winds, a negative bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.49 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is
obtained, resulting in a mean bias of the combined Rayleigh and Mie data of
about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.21 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The corresponding HLOS wind speed bias of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.61 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>0.21/sin(20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)) is considered to
be adequate with regards to the Aeolus mission where absolute HLOS mean bias
values better than 0.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are required. However, it
should be noted that the mean bias shows larger values when considered per
range gate, as depicted in Fig. 8b. The extreme bias values &gt; 3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in range gates 8 to 10 lack statistical
significance, as they result from a very small number of compared bins due
to the scarce data coverage of the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL at altitudes between
8.5 and 9.5 km. For the other range gates, the mean bias varies between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.7 and 0.3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e5331">Another important statistical parameter for the evaluation of the instrument
performance is the standard deviation, which represents the random error and
hence the precision of the A2D. Here, the Mie winds show a value of
1.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (HLOS: 4.3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> which is beyond
the requirements of Aeolus. In order to meet the mission goals, the
satellite instrument should provide a precision of 1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in the planetary boundary layer, 2.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
troposphere and 3 to 5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
stratosphere (ESA, 2016). The random error can also be approximated from
probability density functions (PDFs) illustrating the frequency distribution
of the wind speed differences <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e. the wind error,
for the Rayleigh and Mie channel (see Fig. 9b and c). For the<?pagebreak page3314?> Mie
channel, the wind random error is nearly Gaussian-distributed, while a
number of outliers with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> leads to a discrepancy between the mean bias
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the centre of the Gaussian fit (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.08 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For the same reason, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> width of the fit
(2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is narrower than twice the standard
deviation (2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.0 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which also considers
the outliers. Finally, due to the deviation from a Gaussian distribution,
the scaled MAD of 1.3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is slightly smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e5616">The random error of the Rayleigh channel is even larger (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Like for the Mie channel, the PDF for the
Rayleigh wind random error exhibits slight deviations from a Gaussian
distribution. Consequently, the scaled MAD of 2.6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
marginally differs from the standard deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS6">
  <title>Discussion of Rayleigh and Mie wind errors</title>
      <p id="d1e5693">Speckle noise was identified as one of the major causes for the increased
random error of the A2D Rayleigh and Mie channel. The noise is introduced by
the use of a fibre to transmit the internal reference signal from the laser
to the front optics where it is injected into the receiver reception path
and co-aligned with the atmospheric signal, as shown in Fig. 1. This is
different compared to the free optical path set-up in the transceiver of the
satellite instrument which does not suffer this difficulty. The speckle
pattern which was estimated to consist of about only 2000 speckles is the
input for the Fizeau spectrometer and, after modification by reflection,
also for the Fabry–Pérot spectrometers (DLR, 2016). Although the speckle
pattern is static over short timescales<?pagebreak page3315?> of a few seconds to minutes, slow
changes in the intensity distribution of the internal reference signal are
introduced by variations in laser frequency, polarization or (ambient) fibre
temperature, which in turn modify the response of the Mie and Rayleigh
spectrometers. Since the response measured for the internal reference forms
the basis for the determination of the Doppler frequency shift, and thus
the wind speed in each atmospheric range gate, the speckle-induced
fluctuations increase the random error over the entire wind profile.
Comparisons of the internal reference frequencies derived from the Rayleigh
and Mie responses against the frequencies measured using the wavemeter
showed random variations (2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the order of 8 (Mie) and 11 MHz
(Rayleigh), corresponding to LOS wind errors of 1.4
and 2.0 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Effective speckle reduction is
envisaged, for example, by incorporating a moving diffuser into the beam path of the
internal reference signal in order to rapidly change the speckle pattern
within one observation, thus averaging out the variations.</p>
      <p id="d1e5718">Another contribution to the random error in the A2D Mie channel results from
the combination of a heterogeneous cloud structure and strong wind shear,
which is not resolved due to the coarse vertical resolution. In particular,
the position of the top edges of optically thick clouds within one range
gate has a significant influence on the wind data. According to Sun et al. (2014), who investigated the performance of Aeolus in heterogeneous
atmospheric conditions using high-resolution radiosonde data, a non-uniform
distribution of clouds and/or aerosols within a range bin introduces random
errors in the Mie HLOS winds of several metres per second, depending on
the bin size and altitude. This so-called height assignment error is
especially large in the presence of strong wind shear in the sampling
volume. Assuming a constant shear with typical amplitude of 0.01 s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
over the bin, the Mie wind random error scales inversely proportional with
the thickness of a particle layer randomly positioned inside the bin,
reaching 2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for a bin size of 1000 m and a layer
thickness of 300 m (Sun et al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e5745">Besides the speckle noise and the impact of the atmosphere, a further
contribution to the random error of the Mie winds is caused by an imperfect
response calibration procedure using a linear fitting function to describe
the relationship between the Doppler frequency shift and the position of the
fringe produced by the Fizeau interferometer. Hence, a more adequate fitting
function will be applied in the future in order to take into account the Mie
response nonlinearities and to improve the precision of the Mie channel.</p>
      <p id="d1e5748">Regarding the Rayleigh channel, the assessment of the precision and accuracy
is complicated by the fact that the reference lidar relies on the presence
of particles so that the statistical comparison of A2D Rayleigh winds with
the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL is limited to atmospheric regions, where cloud and
aerosol backscattering occurs. Particulate backscattering leads to
systematic errors of the Rayleigh winds since the convolution of the
broadband Rayleigh return signal with the narrowband Mie return signal
(Fig. 2a) influences the Rayleigh response according to Eq. (1) (Dabas et
al., 2008). However, it should be noted that the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL is very
sensitive even to weak particulate backscatter return due to its coherent
detection principle with small bandwidth. In addition, since the coherent
DWL is deployed on the aircraft, the atmospheric altitudes with low aerosol
backscatter are located in near range gates, which do not suffer remarkably
from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dependency of the signal and strong aerosol extinction (as
it would be the case for ground-based coherent DWL). Hence, 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL
winds are even available for low scattering ratios (&lt; 1.1), where
a very small amount of aerosol contamination of the A2D Rayleigh winds can be
expected. Moreover, Mie-contaminated bins in the Rayleigh data are
identified by a signal threshold approach and excluded from the Rayleigh
wind curtain, as explained in Sect. 4.1.2. Such range bins thus do not
enter the statistical comparison with the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m DWL winds.
Additionally, Rayleigh winds are disregarded in the case that valid winds
are detected from the A2D Mie channel, i.e. if the Mie SNR threshold is
exceeded (Sect. 4.1.3).</p>
      <p id="d1e5791">With a view to the Aeolus mission, it is also important to note that the
strategy for vertical sampling differ between the A2D and the satellite
instrument ALADIN. The latter will measure wind profiles from ground up to
about 25 km altitude, so that the range gates covering the troposphere will
generally be fewer and larger compared to the A2D where all the atmospheric
range gates are available to sample the altitude range from ground up to
about 9 km. For the flights discussed in this work, the vertical sampling
grid was chosen such that the wind shear in the jet stream region could be
determined with the highest possible resolution. Hence, the A2D vertical
sampling was adapted to the expected wind variability (from short-range NWP
forecasts) and science objectives of the flights, which will not be possible
for Aeolus where only a climatology-based approach for different vertical
sampling schemes can be applied.</p>
      <p id="d1e5794">Apart from the speckle noise in the internal reference signal, the error
contributions are different than for the Mie channel. The Rayleigh response
calibration considers nonlinearities by using a fifth-order polynomial
function for fitting the response curve. However, the measurement principle
based on the double-edge technique using a sequential FPI is much more
sensitive to angular variations of the backscattered light compared to the
fringe-imaging technique employed in the Mie channel. As explained above,
small angular fluctuations of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>rad with respect to the
200 mm diameter telescope with a FOV of 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>rad introduce variations
in the measured LOS wind speeds of about 0.4 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (DLR,
2016). Furthermore, the availability of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wind data in those range
bins that were used for the evaluation of the Rayleigh winds suggests at
least a small contamination of the Rayleigh signal by particulate
backscatter, thus introducing an increased random error (Dabas et al.,
2008).</p>
      <?pagebreak page3316?><p id="d1e5830">In general, concerning systematic wind errors, a distinction has to be made
between range-independent and range-dependent error sources. First,
systematic errors are caused by inaccuracies in the aircraft attitude
angles, e.g. by improper knowledge of the laser pointing, or by constant
errors in the wind retrieval, e.g. introduced by uncertainties in the
calibration parameters. The resulting wind bias is hence constant along the
wind profile and can be reduced by applying ZWC, provided that sufficient
ground return signals are available and that the atmospheric contamination
of the ground return signals is low. If the latter conditions are not
fulfilled, producing a wind-shear profile at the expense of one range bin is
an option for eliminating this systematic error source in the analysis of
the airborne observations. Similar systematic error sources, e.g. improper
knowledge of pointing direction or satellite-induced LOS speed, exist for
the satellite instrument producing a slowly varying bias along the orbit
which will be not present in wind-shear profiles. Such errors can be
compensated by means of ZWC.</p>
      <p id="d1e5833">The second class of systematic wind errors are range-dependent errors. One
example which is specific to the A2D is the imperfect transmit–receive
co-alignment, as discussed in Sect. 4.1.2. The error is largest in the
near-field and decreases with increasing distance from the instrument, i.e.
towards the ground. For the satellite instrument, the situation is more
complicated due to the much higher ground track velocity of about
7.2 km s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The different travel times of laser pulses
backscattered from different altitudes in combination with the angular
movement of the satellite during the propagation period of the pulses leads
to range-dependent incidence angles of the backscattered light on the
Rayleigh and Mie spectrometers and hence to a range-dependent bias in the
wind speeds. This effect will be characterized at the beginning of the
Aeolus mission and can be subsequently corrected.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e5850"><bold>(a)</bold> Flight track of the Falcon aircraft (black line) during the
research flight conducted on 4 October 2016. The wind scenes performed from
09:00 to 09:44 and from 09:54 to 10:30 UTC are indicated in
orange and blue. High ground visibility was obtained over the northeast of
Iceland at the beginning and the end of the scenes, respectively. The
background picture is composed of a map provided by Google Earth and
satellite images from Aqua MODIS (VIS channel) taken at 12:15 (right
part) and 13:50 UTC (left part) (MODIS, 2017b). <bold>(b)</bold> Geopotential height
(black isolines, in dekametres) and horizontal wind speed (colour shading)
at 300 hPa over the North Atlantic on 4 October 2016, 12:00 UTC, from ECMWF
model analysis together with the flight track of the Falcon 20 aircraft.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f10.pdf"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Zero wind correction for the flight on 4 October 2016</title>
      <p id="d1e5872">The wind scene on 27 September 2016 presented in the previous sections was
characterized by optically dense clouds at different altitudes. As a
consequence, the ground return signals detected during the scene were too
weak for reliable determination of the ground speed which could be used for
ZWC. Consequently, for this particular research flight, the refined ground
detection scheme could not be exploited for reducing the systematic error of
the Mie and Rayleigh wind speeds. Unfortunately, this circumstance holds
true for most of the flights conducted in the context of NAWDEX, since the
flight planning was primarily driven by the atmospheric science objectives
of the campaign, resulting in complex atmospheric conditions with rather
dense cloud coverage. One exception is the flight performed on 4 October
2016, which was dedicated to the investigation of the jet stream east of
Iceland. For this purpose, the Falcon aircraft crossed the jet stream with
increased wind speeds twice, as it flew two legs back and forth between the
way points located at 66.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 17.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W and 64.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
7.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W (see Fig. 10). To the west of the jet axis cloud-free
conditions prevailed over the northeast of Iceland. Hence, high ground
visibility was obtained at the beginning of the first leg and at the end of
the second leg, as can be seen by the visible satellite image (MODIS, 2017b)
a few hours after the flight depicted in Fig. 10a together with the flight
track of the Falcon. The A2D measured wind profiles during the periods from
09:00 to 09:44 and from 09:54 to 10:30 UTC (see also Table 1). The
figure reveals the contrasting atmospheric circumstances experienced during
the flight which were characterized by highly variable cloud cover along the
flight path.</p>
      <p id="d1e5911">Using the same Rayleigh and Mie response calibrations as for the flight on
27 September 2016, the results of the wind retrieval are displayed in Fig. 11.
While the Rayleigh wind curtain shows good coverage at the beginning and the
end of the period (Fig. 11a), valid Mie winds were primarily obtained in
the vicinity of the jet stream centre, which was sampled in the middle of the
flight (Fig. 11b). This again underlines the complementarity of the two
channels which allows for excellent data coverage despite strongly diverse
atmospheric conditions. Since the direction of the wind was towards the A2D
LOS on the first leg, positive LOS wind speeds of up to 25 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (HLOS: 73 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were measured, whereas negative
winds of the same magnitude were detected on the flight leg back to Iceland.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e5943">LOS wind profiles (positive towards the instrument)
measured during the flight on 4 October 2016 between 09:00 and 10:30 UTC
using <bold>(a)</bold> the A2D Rayleigh channel and <bold>(b)</bold> the A2D Mie channel. The grey
boxes indicate periods during which the ground visibility was sufficient for
obtaining ZWC data. The corresponding ZWC values are plotted in panel <bold>(c)</bold> together
with the ground speed variations introduced by the Mie response fluctuations
in the internal reference signals (see text). <bold>(d)</bold> Wind curtain measured with
the coherent 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m reference wind lidar. For better comparison, the
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wind data were adapted to the measurement grid of the A2D. The
data gap between 09:44 and 09:54 UTC is due to an interruption of the
wind measurement during a curve flight.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f11.pdf"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e5983">Results of the statistical comparison between the A2D and the
2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m LOS wind data measured on 4 October 2016. The statistical comparison
for the Mie wind profiles was performed without and with ZWC.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Statistical parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rayleigh winds</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mie winds</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mie winds</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(without ZWC)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(with ZWC)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of compared bins</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">168</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1246</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1246</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of removed bins due to gross error (&gt; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Slope <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.04 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.04 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Intercept <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.67 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.55 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.02 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean bias</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.54 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.57 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.04 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Standard deviation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.9 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.9 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1.4826 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> median absolute deviation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.0 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.0 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e6361">The systematic and random errors for the Rayleigh and Mie winds were
determined from a statistical comparison with the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m reference
wind lidar data. The resulting scatterplots and PDFs are shown in Fig. 12,
while the statistical parameters are given in Table 5. Due to the poor
overlap of the A2D Rayleigh wind data with the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wind curtain (see
Fig. 11d), only a small number of data points (168) entered the comparison
despite a low coverage ratio threshold of 25 %. Consequently, the
calculated mean bias (1.54 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and scaled MAD
(2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lack statistical significance. This also becomes
obvious from the shape of the histogram illustrating the distribution of the
Rayleigh wind errors (Fig. 12b), which strongly deviates from a Gaussian
distribution. For this reason, the following discussion concentrates on the
Mie channel. Here, a scaled MAD of 2.0 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was derived
from the comparison with the reference lidar, which showed large data overlap
with the Mie channel, resulting in 1246 compared bins. The mean bias of
0.57 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is considerably larger than the value obtained
for the flight on 27 September 2016. The increase in systematic error might result
from changes in the alignment of the transmit–receive path, which can slightly
vary from flight to flight. In combination with potential inaccuracies in
the aircraft attitude data, this leads to unknown contributions to the
retrieved LOS wind speed which are not considered in the retrieval
algorithm.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e6435"><bold>(a)</bold> A2D LOS wind speed determined with the Rayleigh (dots) and
Mie (diamonds) channel versus the 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m LOS wind speed for comparison
of the wind data measured during the flight on 4 October 2016 between
09:00 and 10:30 UTC (see corresponding curtains in Fig. 11a, b and d). The scatterplot for the Mie channel was obtained after zero wind
correction was applied to the measured wind speeds. The corresponding
probability density functions for the wind differences (A2D–2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m)
are shown in panels <bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(c)</bold> for the Rayleigh and Mie channel, respectively. The
solid line represents a Gaussian fit with the given centre and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> width 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/11/3297/2018/amt-11-3297-2018-f12.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page3319?><p id="d1e6492">The wind speed offset can, however, be reduced by ZWC based on the developed
ground detection scheme. Any deviation from zero is interpreted as
systematic error in the wind speed retrieval and hence subtracted from the
measured wind speed. The ground speed (or ZWC) values obtained for the Mie
channel during the two wind scenes on 4 October 2016 are plotted in Fig. 11c.
From a total number of 268 observations, 59 observations included valid ZWC
values in the ground range gates which were identified by the algorithm
explained in Sect. 3.2. The respective observations are indicated as grey
boxes in the Mie wind curtain. Thanks to the refined ground detection on
measurement level, atmospheric contamination of the ground signals was
minimized, thus ensuring that the detrimental influence of near-surface
winds on the ZWC values was diminished. The mean of the ZWC values was
determined to be 0.53 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with a standard deviation of
1.2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The variation around the mean, which is also
observed as random error in the atmospheric Mie wind speeds, can again be
traced back to fluctuations in the Mie response measured for the internal
reference. In order to confirm the correlation between the variability of
the ZWC values and the internal reference variations, the Mie responses of
the internal reference were converted to relative (laser) frequencies using
the Mie response calibration. The obtained frequencies were compared to the
frequencies measured with the high-precision wavemeter which tracked the
absolute wavelength of the laser pulses emitted during the flight. The
frequency difference (Mie response minus wavemeter) was finally translated
into wind speed differences (1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="true">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.63 MHz), resulting in the dashed line plotted in Fig. 11c. The
course of the curve is obviously correlated to the progression of the ZWC
values, thus verifying that the noise in the internal reference considerably
affects the measured ground speeds. As mentioned in the previous section,
speckle noise is responsible for Mie response variations on the order of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Nevertheless, the mean value was
used for correcting the Mie wind speeds, leading to the scatterplot depicted
in Fig. 12a. The statistical parameters after ZWC are given in the right
column Table 5. Subtraction of the mean ZWC value reduces the mean bias to
0.04 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is comparable to the result obtained for
the flight on 27 September 2016. Hence, ZWC in combination with the refined ground
detection scheme improves the accuracy of the A2D remarkably for the
discussed flight.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary and conclusion</title>
      <p id="d1e6584">The ALADIN Airborne Demonstrator (A2D) represents an essential test bed for
the validation of the upcoming Aeolus mission. Due to its similar and
representative design and operation principle, the A2D provides valuable
information on the wind measurement strategies of the satellite instrument
as well as on the optimization of the wind retrieval and related
quality control algorithms. For this purpose, the A2D was successfully
deployed for wind observations in the international airborne field campaign
NAWDEX conducted in Iceland in autumn 2016. Within the scope of the
campaign, 14 research flights were performed extending the wind and
calibration dataset of the A2D for validating the retrieval algorithms and
operation procedures. In particular, the recording of very high HLOS wind
speeds above 80 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was obtained by sampling the North
Atlantic jet stream, while the complementarity of the Rayleigh and Mie
channel allowed for broad vertical and horizontal coverage across the
troposphere.</p>
      <p id="d1e6599">Comparison of the A2D wind data with a high-resolution coherent Doppler wind
lidar emitting at 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m wavelength enabled the evaluation of the
performance of the A2D in terms of accuracy and precision. For the flight on
27 September 2016, the mean bias was found to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.49 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for
the Rayleigh channel and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the Mie channel. A
larger Mie wind speed bias of 0.57 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was determined for
the flight on 4 October 2016, but could be reduced to 0.04 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
by means of ZWC. The latter was supported by accurate ground detection using
a scheme that minimizes the contribution of atmospheric return signals in
the identified ground range gates. This method was also implemented in the
analysis of the Rayleigh and Mie response calibrations where it is
particularly effective in case of low-albedo surfaces in the UV (e.g. land)
or areas with strongly varying ground elevations. The ground detection
scheme is envisaged to be fully exploited in upcoming airborne campaigns to
provide accurate ZWC for flights with sufficient ground visibility. In order
to reduce the random error both in the detected ground speeds and in the
atmospheric wind speeds, the response fluctuations in the internal reference
signals need to be diminished. This problem, which is absent in the
satellite instrument, is proposed to be solved by avoiding slow variations
in the speckle pattern incident on the Mie and Rayleigh spectrometers, e.g.
by implementing a fast diffuser.</p>
      <p id="d1e6672">In addition to the internal reference fluctuations, the large random errors
of about 2.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the Rayleigh channel can be traced
back to the transmit–receive path co-alignment in combination with the high
incidence angle sensitivity of the Rayleigh spectrometer, while the
heterogeneity of the atmosphere and the nonlinearity of the Mie response
function are considered to be additional factors contributing to the random
error (1.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed for the Mie winds. Hence, apart
from the technical development of the A2D regarding speckle reduction and
improved co-alignment, the main<?pagebreak page3320?> focus of the current research is on the
improvement of the system accuracy and precision by implementing a novel Mie
response calibration procedure considering nonlinearities. The modifications
of the A2D are intended to be tested in the frame of forthcoming airborne
campaigns which will also aim to conduct flights in coordination with the
Aeolus satellite after its launch in 2018.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e6706">Data used in this paper can be provided upon request by email to Oliver Reitebuch (oliver.reitebuch@dlr.de).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e6712">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e6718">The development of the ALADIN Airborne Demonstrator and the work carried out
during the NAWDEX campaign were supported by the German Aerospace Center
(Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V., DLR) and the European
Space Agency (ESA), providing funds related to the preparation of Aeolus
(WindVal II, contract no. 4000114053/15/NL/FF/gp), as well as NRL Monterrey
and the EUropean Facility for Airborne Research (EUFAR, project NAWDEX
Influence). The first author was partly funded by a young scientist grant by ESA within the DRAGON 4 program (contract no. 4000121191/17/I-NB). The authors are especially grateful to Engelbert Nagel for his
constant support throughout the campaign.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
The article processing charges for this open-access <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> publication  were covered by a Research <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Centre of the Helmholtz Association.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Ad Stoffelen<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: Gert-Jan Marseille and Mike Hardesty</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Amediek, A. and Wirth, M.: Pointing Verification Method for Spaceborne
Lidars, Remote Sens., 9, 56, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9010056" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs9010056</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Andersson, E.: Statement of Guidance for Global Numerical Weather Prediction
(NWP), World Meteorological Organisation,  available at: <uri>https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/OSY/SOG/SoG-Global-NWP.pdf</uri>
(last access: 25 October 2017), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Ansmann, A., Wandinger, U., Le Rille, O., Lajas, D., and Straume, A. G.:
Particle backscatter and extinction profiling with the spaceborne
high-spectral-resolution Doppler lidar ALADIN: Methodology and simulations,
Appl. Opt., 46, 6606–6622, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.46.006606" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.46.006606</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Baker, W. E., Atlas, R., Cardinali, C., Clement, A., Emmitt, G. D., Gentry,
B. M., Hardesty, R. M., Källén, E., Kavaya, M. J., Langland, R., Ma,
Z., Masutani, M., McCarty, W., Pierce, R. B., Pu, Z., Riishojgaard, L. P.,
Ryan, J., Tucker, S., Weissmann, M., and Yoe, J. G.: Lidar-Measured Wind
Profiles: The Missing Link in the Global Observing System, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 543–564, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00164.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00164.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Banakh, V. A., Smalikho, I. N., and Rahm, S.: Estimation of the refractive
index structure characteristic of air from coherent Doppler wind lidar data,
Opt. Lett., 39, 4321–4324, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.004321" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OL.39.004321</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Baumgarten, G.: Doppler Rayleigh/Mie/Raman lidar for wind and temperature measurements in the middle atmosphere up to 80 km,
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 1509–1518, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-1509-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-1509-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Berry, P. A. M., Smith, R. G., and Benveniste, J.: ACE2: The New Global
Digital Elevation Model, in: Gravity, Geoid and Earth Observation, edited by: Mertikas,
S. P., International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Springer Berlin,
Heidelberg, 231–237, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bosart, B. L., Lee, W.-C., and Wakimoto, R. M.: Procedures to Improve the
Accuracy of Airborne Doppler Radar Data, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 19,
322–339, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426-19.3.322" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426-19.3.322</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Chanin, M. L., Garnier, A., Hauchecorne, A., and Porteneuve, J.: A Doppler
lidar for measuring winds in the middle atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 16,
1273–1276, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GL016i011p01273" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/GL016i011p01273</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Chouza, F., Reitebuch, O., Jähn, M., Rahm, S., and Weinzierl, B.: Vertical wind retrieved by airborne lidar and analysis of
island induced gravity waves in combination with numerical models and in situ particle measurements,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4675–4692, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4675-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-4675-2016</ext-link>,
2016a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Chouza, F., Reitebuch, O., Benedetti, A., and Weinzierl, B.: Saharan dust long-range transport across the Atlantic studied
by an airborne Doppler wind lidar and the MACC model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11581–11600, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11581-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-11581-2016</ext-link>, 2016b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Dabas, A., Denneulin, M. L., Flamant, P., Loth, C., Garnier, A., and
Dolfi-Bouteyre, A.: Correcting winds measured with a Rayleigh Doppler lidar
from pressure and temperature effects, Tellus A, 60, 206–215,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00284.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00284.x</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR): Final Report:
Analysis of enhanced noise in A2D observations,
AE.FR.DLR.A2D.CN11.110716, V 2.0, 110 pp., 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Dolfi-Bouteyre, A., Canat, G., Valla, M., Augere, B., Besson, C., Goular,
D., Lombard, L., Cariou, J.-P., Durecu, A., Fleury, D., Bricteux, L.,
Brousmiche, S., Lugan, S., and Macq, B.: Pulsed 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m LIDAR for
Axial Aircraft Wake Vortex Detection Based on High-Brightness Large-Core
Fiber Amplifier, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quant., 15, 441–450,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTQE.2008.2010463" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/JSTQE.2008.2010463</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Dou, X., Han, Y., Sun, D., Xia, H., Shu, Z., Zhao, R., Shangguan, M., and
Guo, J.: Mobile Rayleigh Doppler lidar for wind and temperature measurements
in the stratosphere and lower mesosphere, Opt. Express, 22, A1203–A1221,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.0A1203" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OE.22.0A1203</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>European Space Agency (ESA): ADM-Aeolus Science Report, ESA SP-1311, 121
pp., available at: <uri>http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/ SP-1311_ADM-Aeolus_FINAL_low-res.pdf</uri> (last access: 21 August 2017), 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3321?><ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>European Space Agency (ESA): ADM-Aeolus Mission Requirements Document,
ESA EOP-SM/2047, 57 pp., available at:
<uri>http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/ADM-Aeolus_MRD.pdf</uri> (last access: 4 March 2018), 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
ISO 11146-1:2005(E): Lasers and laser-related equipment – Test methods for
laser beam widths, divergence angles and beam propagation ratios, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Flamant, P., Cuesta, J., Denneulin, M. L., Dabas, A., and Huber, D.:
ADM-Aeolus retrieval algorithms for aerosol and cloud products, Tellus A,
60, 273–288, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00287.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00287.x</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Flesia, C. and Korb, C. L.: Theory of the double-edge molecular technique
for Doppler lidar wind measurement, Appl. Opt., 38, 432–440,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.38.000432" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.38.000432</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Garnier, A. and Chanin, M. L.: Description of a Doppler Rayleigh LIDAR for
measuring winds in the middle atmosphere, Appl. Phys. B, 55, 35–40,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00348610" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF00348610</ext-link>, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Gentry, B. M., Chen, H., and Li, S. X.: Wind measurements with 355-nm
molecular Doppler lidar, Opt. Lett., 25, 1231–1233,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.25.001231" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OL.25.001231</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Hildebrand, J., Baumgarten, G., Fiedler, J., Hoppe, U.-P., Kaifler, B., Lübken, F.-J., and Williams, B. P.: Combined wind measurements
by two different lidar instruments in the Arctic middle atmosphere, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2433–2445, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2433-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-2433-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kavaya, M. J., Beyon, J. Y., Koch, G. J., Petros, M., Petzar, P. J., Singh,
U. N., Trieu, B. C., and Yu, J.: The Doppler Aerosol Wind (DAWN) Airborne,
Wind-Profiling Coherent-Detection Lidar System: Overview and Preliminary
Flight Results, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 31, 826–842, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Köpp, F., Rahm, S., and Smalikho, I.: Characterization of Aircraft Wake
Vortices by 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m Pulsed Doppler Lidar, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 21,
194–206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0194:COAWVB&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0194:COAWVB&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Reitebuch, O., Witschas, B., and Wührer, C.:
Frequency and timing stability of an airborne injection-seeded Nd: YAG laser
system for direct-detection wind lidar, Appl. Opt., 56, 9057–9068,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.56.009057" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/ao.56.009057</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Li, Z., Lemmerz, C., Paffrath, U., Reitebuch, O., and Witschas, B.: Airborne
Doppler Lidar Investigation of Sea Surface Reflectance at a 355-nm
Ultraviolet Wavelength, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 27, 693–704,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1302.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JTECHA1302.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Marksteiner, U., Reitebuch, O., Rahm, S., Nikolaus, I., Lemmerz, C., and
Witschas, B.: Airborne direct-detection and coherent wind lidar measurements
along the east coast of Greenland in 2009 supporting ESA's Aeolus mission,
Proc. SPIE, 8182, 81820J, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.897528" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1117/12.897528</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Marksteiner, U.: Airborne Wind Lidar Observations for the Validation of the
ADM-Aeolus Instrument, PhD thesis, Technische Universität München,
180 pp., available at: <uri>http://mediatum.ub.tum.de?id=1136781</uri>
(last access: 28 August 2017), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Marksteiner, U., Reitebuch, O., Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Rahm, S., Witschas,
B., Schäfler, A., Emmitt, D., Greco, S., Kavaya, M. J., Gentry, B.,
Neely III, B. R., Kendall, E., and Schüttemeyer, D.: Airborne
Direct-Detection and Coherent Wind Lidar Measurements over the North
Atlantic in 2015 Supporting ESA's Aeolus Mission, Proc. 28th International
Laser-Radar Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 25–30 June, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>McKay, J. A.: Assessment of a multibeam Fizeau wedge interferometer for
Doppler wind lidar, Appl. Opt., 41, 1760–1767, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.41.001760" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.41.001760</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>MODIS: Iceland 2 Subset – Terra 1 km True Color 2016/271 (09/27), available at: <uri>https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Iceland2.2016271.terra.1km</uri>,
last access: 8 December 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>MODIS: Iceland 2 Subset – Aqua 1 km True Color 2016/278 (10/04), available at: <uri>https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Iceland2.2016278.aqua.1km</uri>,
last access: 4 December 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Nicklaus, K., Morasch, V., Hoefer, M., Luttmann, J., Vierkötter, M.,
Ostermeyer, M., Höffner, J., Lemmerz, C., Hoffmann, D., Hoffman, H. J.,
Shori, R., and Hodgson, N.: Frequency stabilization of Q-switched Nd:YAG
oscillators for airborne and spaceborne lidar systems, Proc. SPIE, 6451,
64511L, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.701187" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1117/12.701187</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Paffrath, U.: Performance assessment of the Aeolus Doppler wind lidar
prototype, PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, 144 pp.,
available at: <uri>https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=601980</uri>
(last access: 23 June 2017), 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Paffrath, U., Lemmerz, C., Reitebuch, O., Witschas, B., Nikolaus, I., and
Freudenthaler, V.: The Airborne Demonstrator for the Direct-Detection
Doppler Wind Lidar ALADIN on ADM-Aeolus. Part II: Simulations and Rayleigh
Receiver Radiometric Performance, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26,
2516–2530, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1314.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JTECHA1314.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O.: Wind Lidar for Atmospheric Research, in: Atmospheric physics:
Background, methods, trends, edited by: Schumann, U., Research Topics in
Aerospace, Springer, Berlin, London, 487–507, 2012a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O.: The Spaceborne Wind Lidar Mission ADM-Aeolus, in: Atmospheric
physics: Background, methods, trends, edited by: Schumann, U., Research Topics in
Aerospace, Springer, Berlin, London, 815–827, 2012b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Reitebuch, O., Lemmerz, C., Nagel, E., Paffrath, U., Durand, Y., Endemann,
M., Fabre, F., and Chaloupy, M.: The Airborne Demonstrator for the
Direct-Detection Doppler Wind Lidar ALADIN on ADM-Aeolus. Part I: Instrument
Design and Comparison to Satellite Instrument, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech.,
26, 2501–2515, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1309.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JTECHA1309.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Reitebuch, O., Marksteiner, U., Rompel, M., Meringer, M., Schmidt, K.,
Huber, D., Nikolaus, I., Dabas, A., Marshall, J., <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> de Bruin, F., Kanitz, T., and Straume, A.-G.: Aeolus End-to-End Simulator
and Wind Retrieval Algorithms up to Level 1B, Proc. 28th International
Laser-Radar Conference (ILRC), Bucharest, Romania, 25–30 June, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O., Huber, D., and Nikolaus, I.: ADM-Aeolus Algorithm
Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD) Level1B Products, AE-RP-DLR-L1B-001,
4.4, 117 pp., 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Schäfler, A., Craig, G., Wernli, H., Arbogast, P., Doyle, J. D.,
McTaggart-Cowan, R., Methven, J., Rivière, G., Ament, F., Boettcher, M.,
Bramberger, M., Cazenave, Q., Cotton, R., Crewell S., Delanoë, J.,
Dörnbrack, A., Ehrlich, A., Ewald, F., Fix, A., Grams, C. M., Gray, S.
L., Grob, H., Groß, S., Hagen, M., Harvey, B., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M.,
Kölling, T., Konow, H., Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Magnusson, L., Mayer, B.,
Mech, M., Moore, R., Pelon, J., Quinting, J., Rahm, S., Rapp, M.,
Rautenhaus, M., Reitebuch, O., Reynolds, C. A., Sodemann, H., Spengler, T.,
Vaughan, G., Wendisch, M., Wirth, M., Witschas, B., Wolf, K., and Zinner,
T.: The North Atlantic Waveguide and<?pagebreak page3322?> Downstream Impact Experiment, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., in press, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Schröder, T., Lemmerz, C., Reitebuch, O., Wirth, M., Wührer, C., and
Treichel, R.: Frequency jitter and spectral width of an injection-seeded
Q-switched Nd:YAG laser for a Doppler wind lidar, Appl. Phys. B, 87,
437–444, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-007-2627-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00340-007-2627-5</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Shangguan, M., Xia, H., Wang, C., Qiu, J., Lin, S., Dou, X., Zhang, Q., and
Pan, J.-W.: Dual-frequency Doppler lidar for wind detection with a
superconducting nanowire single-photon detector, Opt. Lett., 42, 3541–3544,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.42.003541" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OL.42.003541</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Stoffelen, A., Pailleux, J., Källen, E., Vaughan, M., Isaksen, L.,
Flamant, P., Wergen, W., Andersson, E., Schyberg, H., Culoma, A., Meynart,
R., Endemann, M., and Ingmann, P.: The Atmospheric Dynamics Mission for
Global Wind Field Measurement, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 86, 73–87,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-73" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-86-1-73</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Sun, X. J., Zhang, R. W., Marseille, G. J., Stoffelen, A., Donovan, D., Liu, L., and Zhao, J.: The performance of Aeolus in heterogeneous
atmospheric conditions using high-resolution radiosonde data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 2695–2717, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2695-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-2695-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Tan, D. G. H. and Andersson, E.: Simulation of the yield and accuracy of
wind profile measurements from the Atmospheric Dynamics Mission
(ADM-Aeolus), Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 1737–1757,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.02" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1256/qj.04.02</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Tan, D. G. H., Andersson, E., Kloe, J. D., Marseille, G.-J., Stoffelen, A.,
Poli, P., Denneulin, M.-L., Dabas, A., Huber, D., Reitebuch, O., Flamant,
P., Le Rille, O., and Nett, H.: The ADM-Aeolus wind retrieval algorithms,
Tellus A, 60, 191–205,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00285.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00285.x</ext-link>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Weiler, F.: Bias correction using ground echoes for the airborne
demonstrator of the wind lidar on the ADM-Aeolus mission, Master's thesis,
University of Innsbruck, 96 pp.,
available at: <uri>https://resolver.obvsg.at/urn:nbn:at:at-ubi:1-7104</uri>
(last access: 11 October 2017), 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Weissmann, M., Busen, R., Dörnbrack, A., Rahm, S., and Reitebuch, O.:
Targeted Observations with an Airborne Wind Lidar, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 22, 1706–1719, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH1801.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JTECH1801.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Witschas, B.: Analytical model for Rayleigh–Brillouin line shapes in air,
Appl. Opt., 50, 267–270, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.000267" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.50.000267</ext-link>,
2011a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Witschas, B.: Analytical model for Rayleigh–Brillouin line shapes in air:
Errata, Appl. Opt., 50, 5758, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.005758" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.50.005758</ext-link>, 2011b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Witschas, B.: Experiments on spontaneous Rayleigh-Brillouin scattering in
air, PhD thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, 112 pp.,
available at: <uri>http://elib.dlr.de/98547/</uri> (last access: 8 March 2017), 2011c.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Witschas, B., Lemmerz, C., and Reitebuch, O.: Daytime measurements of
atmospheric temperature profiles (2–15 km) by lidar utilizing
Rayleigh–Brillouin scattering, Opt. Lett., 39, 1972–1975,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.001972" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/OL.39.001972</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Witschas, B., Rahm, S., Dörnbrack, A., Wagner, J., and Rapp, M.:
Airborne Wind Lidar Measurements of Vertical and Horizontal Winds for the
Investigation of Orographically Induced Gravity Waves, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 34, 1371–1386, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-17-0021.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JTECH-D-17-0021.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Airborne wind lidar observations over the North Atlantic in 2016 for the pre-launch validation of the satellite mission Aeolus</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>In preparation of the satellite mission Aeolus carried
out by the European Space Agency, airborne wind lidar observations have been
performed in the frame of the North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact
Experiment (NAWDEX), employing the prototype of the satellite instrument,
the ALADIN Airborne Demonstrator (A2D). The direct-detection Doppler wind
lidar system is composed of a frequency-stabilized Nd:YAG laser operating at
355&thinsp;nm, a Cassegrain telescope and a dual-channel receiver. The latter
incorporates a Fizeau interferometer and two sequential Fabry–Pérot
interferometers to measure line-of-sight (LOS) wind speeds by analysing both
Mie and Rayleigh backscatter signals. The benefit of the complementary
design is demonstrated by airborne observations of strong wind shear related
to the jet stream over the North Atlantic on 27 September and 4 October
2016, yielding high data coverage in diverse atmospheric conditions. The
paper also highlights the relevance of accurate ground detection for the
Rayleigh and Mie response calibration and wind retrieval. Using a detection
scheme developed for the NAWDEX campaign, the obtained ground return signals
are exploited for the correction of systematic wind errors. Validation of
the instrument performance and retrieval algorithms was conducted by
comparison with DLR's coherent wind lidar which was operated in parallel,
showing a systematic error of the A2D LOS winds of less than
0.5&thinsp;m&thinsp;s<sup>−1</sup> and random errors from 1.5
(Mie) to 2.7&thinsp;m&thinsp;s<sup>−1</sup> (Rayleigh).</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Amediek, A. and Wirth, M.: Pointing Verification Method for Spaceborne
Lidars, Remote Sens., 9, 56, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9010056" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9010056</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Andersson, E.: Statement of Guidance for Global Numerical Weather Prediction
(NWP), World Meteorological Organisation,  available at: <a href="https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/OSY/SOG/SoG-Global-NWP.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/OSY/SOG/SoG-Global-NWP.pdf</a>
(last access: 25 October 2017), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Ansmann, A., Wandinger, U., Le Rille, O., Lajas, D., and Straume, A. G.:
Particle backscatter and extinction profiling with the spaceborne
high-spectral-resolution Doppler lidar ALADIN: Methodology and simulations,
Appl. Opt., 46, 6606–6622, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.46.006606" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.46.006606</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, W. E., Atlas, R., Cardinali, C., Clement, A., Emmitt, G. D., Gentry,
B. M., Hardesty, R. M., Källén, E., Kavaya, M. J., Langland, R., Ma,
Z., Masutani, M., McCarty, W., Pierce, R. B., Pu, Z., Riishojgaard, L. P.,
Ryan, J., Tucker, S., Weissmann, M., and Yoe, J. G.: Lidar-Measured Wind
Profiles: The Missing Link in the Global Observing System, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 543–564, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00164.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00164.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Banakh, V. A., Smalikho, I. N., and Rahm, S.: Estimation of the refractive
index structure characteristic of air from coherent Doppler wind lidar data,
Opt. Lett., 39, 4321–4324, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.004321" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.004321</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Baumgarten, G.: Doppler Rayleigh/Mie/Raman lidar for wind and temperature measurements in the middle atmosphere up to 80&thinsp;km,
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3, 1509–1518, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-1509-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-1509-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Berry, P. A. M., Smith, R. G., and Benveniste, J.: ACE2: The New Global
Digital Elevation Model, in: Gravity, Geoid and Earth Observation, edited by: Mertikas,
S. P., International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Springer Berlin,
Heidelberg, 231–237, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bosart, B. L., Lee, W.-C., and Wakimoto, R. M.: Procedures to Improve the
Accuracy of Airborne Doppler Radar Data, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 19,
322–339, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426-19.3.322" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426-19.3.322</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Chanin, M. L., Garnier, A., Hauchecorne, A., and Porteneuve, J.: A Doppler
lidar for measuring winds in the middle atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 16,
1273–1276, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GL016i011p01273" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/GL016i011p01273</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Chouza, F., Reitebuch, O., Jähn, M., Rahm, S., and Weinzierl, B.: Vertical wind retrieved by airborne lidar and analysis of
island induced gravity waves in combination with numerical models and in situ particle measurements,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4675–4692, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4675-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4675-2016</a>,
2016a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Chouza, F., Reitebuch, O., Benedetti, A., and Weinzierl, B.: Saharan dust long-range transport across the Atlantic studied
by an airborne Doppler wind lidar and the MACC model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 11581–11600, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11581-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-11581-2016</a>, 2016b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Dabas, A., Denneulin, M. L., Flamant, P., Loth, C., Garnier, A., and
Dolfi-Bouteyre, A.: Correcting winds measured with a Rayleigh Doppler lidar
from pressure and temperature effects, Tellus A, 60, 206–215,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00284.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00284.x</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR): Final Report:
Analysis of enhanced noise in A2D observations,
AE.FR.DLR.A2D.CN11.110716, V 2.0, 110 pp., 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Dolfi-Bouteyre, A., Canat, G., Valla, M., Augere, B., Besson, C., Goular,
D., Lombard, L., Cariou, J.-P., Durecu, A., Fleury, D., Bricteux, L.,
Brousmiche, S., Lugan, S., and Macq, B.: Pulsed 1.5&thinsp;µm LIDAR for
Axial Aircraft Wake Vortex Detection Based on High-Brightness Large-Core
Fiber Amplifier, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quant., 15, 441–450,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTQE.2008.2010463" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTQE.2008.2010463</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Dou, X., Han, Y., Sun, D., Xia, H., Shu, Z., Zhao, R., Shangguan, M., and
Guo, J.: Mobile Rayleigh Doppler lidar for wind and temperature measurements
in the stratosphere and lower mesosphere, Opt. Express, 22, A1203–A1221,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.0A1203" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.0A1203</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
European Space Agency (ESA): ADM-Aeolus Science Report, ESA SP-1311, 121
pp., available at: <a href="http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/ SP-1311_ADM-Aeolus_FINAL_low-res.pdf" target="_blank">http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/ SP-1311_ADM-Aeolus_FINAL_low-res.pdf</a> (last access: 21 August 2017), 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
European Space Agency (ESA): ADM-Aeolus Mission Requirements Document,
ESA EOP-SM/2047, 57 pp., available at:
<a href="http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/ADM-Aeolus_MRD.pdf" target="_blank">http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/ADM-Aeolus_MRD.pdf</a> (last access: 4 March 2018), 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
ISO 11146-1:2005(E): Lasers and laser-related equipment – Test methods for
laser beam widths, divergence angles and beam propagation ratios, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Flamant, P., Cuesta, J., Denneulin, M. L., Dabas, A., and Huber, D.:
ADM-Aeolus retrieval algorithms for aerosol and cloud products, Tellus A,
60, 273–288, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00287.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00287.x</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Flesia, C. and Korb, C. L.: Theory of the double-edge molecular technique
for Doppler lidar wind measurement, Appl. Opt., 38, 432–440,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.38.000432" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.38.000432</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Garnier, A. and Chanin, M. L.: Description of a Doppler Rayleigh LIDAR for
measuring winds in the middle atmosphere, Appl. Phys. B, 55, 35–40,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00348610" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00348610</a>, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Gentry, B. M., Chen, H., and Li, S. X.: Wind measurements with 355-nm
molecular Doppler lidar, Opt. Lett., 25, 1231–1233,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.25.001231" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.25.001231</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Hildebrand, J., Baumgarten, G., Fiedler, J., Hoppe, U.-P., Kaifler, B., Lübken, F.-J., and Williams, B. P.: Combined wind measurements
by two different lidar instruments in the Arctic middle atmosphere, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 2433–2445, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2433-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2433-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kavaya, M. J., Beyon, J. Y., Koch, G. J., Petros, M., Petzar, P. J., Singh,
U. N., Trieu, B. C., and Yu, J.: The Doppler Aerosol Wind (DAWN) Airborne,
Wind-Profiling Coherent-Detection Lidar System: Overview and Preliminary
Flight Results, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 31, 826–842, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Köpp, F., Rahm, S., and Smalikho, I.: Characterization of Aircraft Wake
Vortices by 2&thinsp;µm Pulsed Doppler Lidar, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 21,
194–206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0194:COAWVB&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021&lt;0194:COAWVB&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Reitebuch, O., Witschas, B., and Wührer, C.:
Frequency and timing stability of an airborne injection-seeded Nd: YAG laser
system for direct-detection wind lidar, Appl. Opt., 56, 9057–9068,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.56.009057" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.56.009057</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Z., Lemmerz, C., Paffrath, U., Reitebuch, O., and Witschas, B.: Airborne
Doppler Lidar Investigation of Sea Surface Reflectance at a 355-nm
Ultraviolet Wavelength, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 27, 693–704,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1302.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1302.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Marksteiner, U., Reitebuch, O., Rahm, S., Nikolaus, I., Lemmerz, C., and
Witschas, B.: Airborne direct-detection and coherent wind lidar measurements
along the east coast of Greenland in 2009 supporting ESA's Aeolus mission,
Proc. SPIE, 8182, 81820J, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.897528" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1117/12.897528</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Marksteiner, U.: Airborne Wind Lidar Observations for the Validation of the
ADM-Aeolus Instrument, PhD thesis, Technische Universität München,
180 pp., available at: <a href="http://mediatum.ub.tum.de?id=1136781" target="_blank">http://mediatum.ub.tum.de?id=1136781</a>
(last access: 28 August 2017), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Marksteiner, U., Reitebuch, O., Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Rahm, S., Witschas,
B., Schäfler, A., Emmitt, D., Greco, S., Kavaya, M. J., Gentry, B.,
Neely III, B. R., Kendall, E., and Schüttemeyer, D.: Airborne
Direct-Detection and Coherent Wind Lidar Measurements over the North
Atlantic in 2015 Supporting ESA's Aeolus Mission, Proc. 28th International
Laser-Radar Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 25–30 June, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
McKay, J. A.: Assessment of a multibeam Fizeau wedge interferometer for
Doppler wind lidar, Appl. Opt., 41, 1760–1767, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.41.001760" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.41.001760</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
MODIS: Iceland 2 Subset – Terra 1 km True Color 2016/271 (09/27), available at: <a href="https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Iceland2.2016271.terra.1km" target="_blank">https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Iceland2.2016271.terra.1km</a>,
last access: 8 December 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
MODIS: Iceland 2 Subset – Aqua 1 km True Color 2016/278 (10/04), available at: <a href="https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Iceland2.2016278.aqua.1km" target="_blank">https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Iceland2.2016278.aqua.1km</a>,
last access: 4 December 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Nicklaus, K., Morasch, V., Hoefer, M., Luttmann, J., Vierkötter, M.,
Ostermeyer, M., Höffner, J., Lemmerz, C., Hoffmann, D., Hoffman, H. J.,
Shori, R., and Hodgson, N.: Frequency stabilization of Q-switched Nd:YAG
oscillators for airborne and spaceborne lidar systems, Proc. SPIE, 6451,
64511L, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.701187" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1117/12.701187</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Paffrath, U.: Performance assessment of the Aeolus Doppler wind lidar
prototype, PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, 144 pp.,
available at: <a href="https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=601980" target="_blank">https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=601980</a>
(last access: 23 June 2017), 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Paffrath, U., Lemmerz, C., Reitebuch, O., Witschas, B., Nikolaus, I., and
Freudenthaler, V.: The Airborne Demonstrator for the Direct-Detection
Doppler Wind Lidar ALADIN on ADM-Aeolus. Part II: Simulations and Rayleigh
Receiver Radiometric Performance, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26,
2516–2530, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1314.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1314.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O.: Wind Lidar for Atmospheric Research, in: Atmospheric physics:
Background, methods, trends, edited by: Schumann, U., Research Topics in
Aerospace, Springer, Berlin, London, 487–507, 2012a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O.: The Spaceborne Wind Lidar Mission ADM-Aeolus, in: Atmospheric
physics: Background, methods, trends, edited by: Schumann, U., Research Topics in
Aerospace, Springer, Berlin, London, 815–827, 2012b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O., Lemmerz, C., Nagel, E., Paffrath, U., Durand, Y., Endemann,
M., Fabre, F., and Chaloupy, M.: The Airborne Demonstrator for the
Direct-Detection Doppler Wind Lidar ALADIN on ADM-Aeolus. Part I: Instrument
Design and Comparison to Satellite Instrument, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech.,
26, 2501–2515, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1309.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1309.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O., Marksteiner, U., Rompel, M., Meringer, M., Schmidt, K.,
Huber, D., Nikolaus, I., Dabas, A., Marshall, J., <br/> de Bruin, F., Kanitz, T., and Straume, A.-G.: Aeolus End-to-End Simulator
and Wind Retrieval Algorithms up to Level 1B, Proc. 28th International
Laser-Radar Conference (ILRC), Bucharest, Romania, 25–30 June, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Reitebuch, O., Huber, D., and Nikolaus, I.: ADM-Aeolus Algorithm
Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD) Level1B Products, AE-RP-DLR-L1B-001,
4.4, 117 pp., 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Schäfler, A., Craig, G., Wernli, H., Arbogast, P., Doyle, J. D.,
McTaggart-Cowan, R., Methven, J., Rivière, G., Ament, F., Boettcher, M.,
Bramberger, M., Cazenave, Q., Cotton, R., Crewell S., Delanoë, J.,
Dörnbrack, A., Ehrlich, A., Ewald, F., Fix, A., Grams, C. M., Gray, S.
L., Grob, H., Groß, S., Hagen, M., Harvey, B., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M.,
Kölling, T., Konow, H., Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Magnusson, L., Mayer, B.,
Mech, M., Moore, R., Pelon, J., Quinting, J., Rahm, S., Rapp, M.,
Rautenhaus, M., Reitebuch, O., Reynolds, C. A., Sodemann, H., Spengler, T.,
Vaughan, G., Wendisch, M., Wirth, M., Witschas, B., Wolf, K., and Zinner,
T.: The North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., in press, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Schröder, T., Lemmerz, C., Reitebuch, O., Wirth, M., Wührer, C., and
Treichel, R.: Frequency jitter and spectral width of an injection-seeded
Q-switched Nd:YAG laser for a Doppler wind lidar, Appl. Phys. B, 87,
437–444, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-007-2627-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-007-2627-5</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Shangguan, M., Xia, H., Wang, C., Qiu, J., Lin, S., Dou, X., Zhang, Q., and
Pan, J.-W.: Dual-frequency Doppler lidar for wind detection with a
superconducting nanowire single-photon detector, Opt. Lett., 42, 3541–3544,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.42.003541" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.42.003541</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Stoffelen, A., Pailleux, J., Källen, E., Vaughan, M., Isaksen, L.,
Flamant, P., Wergen, W., Andersson, E., Schyberg, H., Culoma, A., Meynart,
R., Endemann, M., and Ingmann, P.: The Atmospheric Dynamics Mission for
Global Wind Field Measurement, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 86, 73–87,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-73" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-73</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Sun, X. J., Zhang, R. W., Marseille, G. J., Stoffelen, A., Donovan, D., Liu, L., and Zhao, J.: The performance of Aeolus in heterogeneous
atmospheric conditions using high-resolution radiosonde data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 2695–2717, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2695-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2695-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Tan, D. G. H. and Andersson, E.: Simulation of the yield and accuracy of
wind profile measurements from the Atmospheric Dynamics Mission
(ADM-Aeolus), Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 1737–1757,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.02" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.02</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Tan, D. G. H., Andersson, E., Kloe, J. D., Marseille, G.-J., Stoffelen, A.,
Poli, P., Denneulin, M.-L., Dabas, A., Huber, D., Reitebuch, O., Flamant,
P., Le Rille, O., and Nett, H.: The ADM-Aeolus wind retrieval algorithms,
Tellus A, 60, 191–205,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00285.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00285.x</a>, 2016.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Weiler, F.: Bias correction using ground echoes for the airborne
demonstrator of the wind lidar on the ADM-Aeolus mission, Master's thesis,
University of Innsbruck, 96 pp.,
available at: <a href="https://resolver.obvsg.at/urn:nbn:at:at-ubi:1-7104" target="_blank">https://resolver.obvsg.at/urn:nbn:at:at-ubi:1-7104</a>
(last access: 11 October 2017), 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Weissmann, M., Busen, R., Dörnbrack, A., Rahm, S., and Reitebuch, O.:
Targeted Observations with an Airborne Wind Lidar, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 22, 1706–1719, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH1801.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH1801.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Witschas, B.: Analytical model for Rayleigh–Brillouin line shapes in air,
Appl. Opt., 50, 267–270, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.000267" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.000267</a>,
2011a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Witschas, B.: Analytical model for Rayleigh–Brillouin line shapes in air:
Errata, Appl. Opt., 50, 5758, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.005758" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.50.005758</a>, 2011b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Witschas, B.: Experiments on spontaneous Rayleigh-Brillouin scattering in
air, PhD thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, 112 pp.,
available at: <a href="http://elib.dlr.de/98547/" target="_blank">http://elib.dlr.de/98547/</a> (last access: 8 March 2017), 2011c.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Witschas, B., Lemmerz, C., and Reitebuch, O.: Daytime measurements of
atmospheric temperature profiles (2–15&thinsp;km) by lidar utilizing
Rayleigh–Brillouin scattering, Opt. Lett., 39, 1972–1975,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.001972" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.39.001972</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Witschas, B., Rahm, S., Dörnbrack, A., Wagner, J., and Rapp, M.:
Airborne Wind Lidar Measurements of Vertical and Horizontal Winds for the
Investigation of Orographically Induced Gravity Waves, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 34, 1371–1386, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-17-0021.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-17-0021.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
