3+2 + <i>X</i>: what is the most useful depolarization input for retrieving microphysical properties of non-spherical particles from lidar measurements using the spheroid model of Dubovik et al. (2006)?

Tesche, Matthias; Kolgotin, Alexei; Haarig, Moritz; Burton, Sharon P.; Ferrare, Richard A.; Hostetler, Chris A.; Müller, Detlef

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4421-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4421-2019

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4421-2019

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

Articles | Volume 12, issue 8

Research article

|

19 Aug 2019

Research article |

| 19 Aug 2019

3+2 + X: what is the most useful depolarization input for retrieving microphysical properties of non-spherical particles from lidar measurements using the spheroid model of Dubovik et al. (2006)?

Matthias Tesche, Alexei Kolgotin, Moritz Haarig, Sharon P. Burton, Richard A. Ferrare, Chris A. Hostetler, and Detlef Müller

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Aug 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 20 Mar 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'review', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Apr 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to all Referees', Matthias Tesche, 25 Jun 2019
RC2: 'review', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 May 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to all Referees', Matthias Tesche, 25 Jun 2019
RC3: 'review', Anonymous Referee #3, 08 May 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to all Referees', Matthias Tesche, 25 Jun 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Matthias Tesche on behalf of the Authors (25 Jun 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (12 Jul 2019) by Vassilis Amiridis

Dear Matthias,

The manuscript is ready for publication, after considering some minor corrections by my side, mentioned bellow:

The paper concludes that δ355 provides sufficient information for a 3+2+X dust retrieval when using the Dubovik model, but no explanation is provided on why this happens. Gasteiger et al. (2011) discuss the possibility that for larger size parameters δ is similar for spheroids and irregularly-shaped particles. This may be a possible explanation: δ532 and δ1064 refer to smaller size parameters than δ355, thus their values for spheroid particles are not similar to their values for irregular-shaped (more realistic) particles. This may be the reason that δ532 and δ1064 do not provide good retrievals when the spheroid model (of Dubovik et al. (2006)) is used, whereas δ355 does. Please include this discussion in the paper.

Page 4, lines 13-14, “i.e. δ=0 for spherical particles (or those that appear spherical with respect to the considered wavelength) and increases with particle non-sphericity”: This is not always true. As shown in Mishchenko and Hovenier (1995) there is no systematic dependence of particle asphericity with the light depolarization, with cases presented therein of strongly aspherical particles producing depolarization values close to zero. Please rephrase accordingly.

Page 5, lines 26-27, “In both cases… below 0.01”: This is the conclusion of Mishchenko et al. (2016) but not of Gialitaki et al. (2019). Please rephrase accordingly.

Page 8, lines 6-9, “For the measurements… (Set I)”: This paragraph is repeated in lines 26-29.

Page 10, lines 17-18, “This indicates… the retrieval.”: I think you should provide more info/examples to justify this statement, or avoid making it.

Page 11, lines 33-34, “(ii) the data sets… to the obtained dust ratio,”: Fig. 7a shows that the input of δ355+δ532+δ1064 and of δ355+δ1064 provide good comparisons with the dust ratio. Please rephrase.

References
Mishchenko, M. I., and Hovenier, J. W.: Depolarization of light backscattered by randomly oriented nonspherical particles. Opt. Lett. 20, 1356–1358, 1995.

Kind regards,
Vassilis

Hide

AR by Matthias Tesche on behalf of the Authors (12 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Jul 2019) by Vassilis Amiridis

AR by Matthias Tesche on behalf of the Authors (22 Jul 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

Today, few lidar are capable of triple-wavelength particle linear depolarization ratio (PLDR) measurements. This study is the first systematic investigation of the effect of different choices of PLDR input on the inversion of lidar measurements of mineral dust and dusty mixtures using light scattering by randomly oriented spheroids. We provide recommendations of the most suitable input parameters for use with the applied methodology, based on a relational assessment of the inversion output.