<?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" article-type="research-article"><?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-15-117-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>New sampling strategy mitigates a solar-geometry-induced bias in sub-kilometre vapour scaling statistics derived from <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>imaging spectroscopy</article-title><alt-title>Solar-aware sub-km vapour scaling​​​​​​​</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Solar-aware sub-km vapour scaling​​​​​​​}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. T. Richardson et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Richardson</surname><given-names>Mark T.</given-names></name>
          <email>markr@jpl.nasa.gov</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7063-631X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Thompson</surname><given-names>David R.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1100-7550</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Kurowski</surname><given-names>Marcin J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Lebsock</surname><given-names>Matthew D.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA 91109, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, CO 90095, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Mark T. Richardson (markr@jpl.nasa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>5</day><month>January</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>15</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>117</fpage><lpage>129</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>3</day><month>June</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>11</day><month>August</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>12</day><month>October</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>15</day><month>November</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 Mark T. Richardson et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
      <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/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e116">Upcoming spaceborne imaging spectrometers will retrieve
clear-sky total column water vapour (TCWV) over land at a horizontal resolution of 30–80 m. Here we show how to obtain, from these retrievals,
exponents describing the power-law scaling of sub-kilometre horizontal variability in clear-sky bulk planetary boundary layer (PBL) water vapour (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) accounting
for realistic non-vertical sunlight paths. We trace direct solar beam paths
through large eddy simulations (LES) of shallow convective PBLs and show that retrieved 2-D water vapour fields are “smeared” in the direction of the solar azimuth. This changes the horizontal spatial scaling of the field
primarily in that direction, and we address this by calculating exponents
perpendicular to the solar azimuth, that is to say flying “across” the
sunlight path rather than “towards” or “away” from the Sun. Across 23
LES snapshots, at solar zenith angle SZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> the mean bias in calculated exponent is 38 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12 % (95 % range) along the solar azimuth, while
following our strategy it is 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9 % and no longer significant. Both bias and root-mean-square error decrease with lower SZA. We include
retrieval errors from several sources, including (1) the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) instrument noise model, (2) requisite assumptions about the atmospheric thermodynamic profile, and (3) spatially nonuniform aerosol distributions. By only considering the direct
beam, we neglect 3-D radiative effects such as light scattered into the field of view by nearby clouds. However, our proposed technique is necessary
to counteract the direct-path effect of solar geometries and obtain unique
information about sub-kilometre PBL <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scaling from upcoming spaceborne spectrometer missions.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  <notes notes-type="copyrightstatement">
  
      <p id="d1e171">© 2022 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.</p>
</notes></front>
<body>
      


<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e182">Spatial scaling in the variability of atmospheric properties such as water
vapour (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) can be characterised via structure functions, with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>th-order structure function of a field <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> defined as
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M11" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the expected value, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> a location, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> a separation between points. Fields of temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and wind speed are commonly well modelled by a power law:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M17" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>∝</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the log–log gradient of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. There is strong motivation to quantify and understand these exponents and
the ranges <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within which they are valid, and here we
specify second-order structure functions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with exponent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, describing variance scaling. This is related to the
commonly referenced Fourier power spectrum exponent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M25" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        One motivation for obtaining these exponents is that climate model sub-grid
variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is strongly linked to cloud formation
(Golaz et al., 2002; Perraud et al.,
2011; Sommeria and Deardorff, 1977). In principle, sub-grid variance can<?pagebreak page118?> be tuned for each model set-up, but scale-aware variance relationships allow a smooth and consistent transition between low-resolution (order <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> hundreds
of kilometres) and high-resolution (order <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> km) models (Arakawa et al., 2011; Schemann et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e455">At scales larger than model grid cells, observational estimates of variance
scaling can also be used to assess model performance, as has been done using
estimates of temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) and airborne campaign data
(Kahn et al., 2011).</p>
      <p id="d1e472">Furthermore, the scaling exponents are related to the physical processes
that generate the cascade of turbulent eddies in the atmosphere. For
example, while mean-scale statistics retrieved by AIRS are approximately
isotropic in the horizontal, there are differences in scaling between the
horizontal and vertical (Pressel and Collins, 2012).
Scaling following <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is predicted for a passive tracer in
the inertial range of 3-D locally isotropic turbulence following Kolmogorov theory. Accounting for the buoyancy effects can
strongly modify that scaling (Bolgiano, 1959; Obukhov,
1959), with different exponents expected for the velocity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and scalars (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), as shown in e.g. Kunnen et al. (2008), Wroblewski et al. (2010), or Boffetta et al. (2012). Exponents of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have been commonly measured
for vertical wind profiles from dropsondes (Lovejoy et
al., 2007), and values typically near <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for horizontal
water vapour in non-convective areas and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.72</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in convective areas have been determined from airborne lidar retrievals over
horizontal ranges of up to 100 km (Fischer et al.,
2012, 2013); meanwhile, the sub-kilometre regime remains undermeasured.</p>
      <p id="d1e595">Of particular interest for modellers is the existence of “scale breaks”, distances at which the exponents change such that a smooth transition
between model resolutions may not be possible. These have been calculated to
occur at distances over a broad range of 10–1000 km
(Bacmeister
et al., 1996; Gage and Nastrom, 1985; Kahn et al., 2011; Pinel et al., 2012), and the range of scales has been speculated to be related to the size of
convective systems (Dorrestijn et al., 2018) or changes in
the nature of turbulence
(Kurowski et al., 2015;
Skamarock et al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e599">This study focusses on the estimation of horizontal scaling of clear-sky
TCWV at sub-kilometre scales and specifically on the integrated PBL water vapour which we refer to as the partial column water vapour (PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). Recent work using airborne data (Thompson et al., 2021) and large eddy simulation (LES) output (Richardson et al.,
2021a) has provided evidence that sub-kilometre horizontal variability in total column water vapour (TCWV) is almost perfectly correlated with PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
variability, such that high-spatial-resolution retrievals of TCWV from
visible and shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectrometers can provide
unique information about PBL <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> variability. This is not a statement that all
water vapour is inside the PBL but rather that on sub-kilometre spatial scales, the variability in low-altitude water vapour dominates the horizontal column variability. It remains a challenge to disentangle variability from
different heights within the PBL such as the sub-cloud layer or a
conditionally unstable cloud layer, which may have different scaling
properties.</p>
      <p id="d1e627">In particular, the PBL depth is typically 1–2.5 km in these simulations,
while we obtain variability statistics over horizontal ranges of under 1 km.
The vertical averaging over a scale larger than the horizontal calculation
means that the interpretation of the physical meaning of the derived
exponents is challenging and may not be directly related to the
theoretically derived exponents discussed above. This study aims only to
determine whether the measurement problem of the solar path can be overcome and leaves the physical interpretation beyond its scope. This point will be
revisited in Sect. 4.</p>
      <p id="d1e630">Several modern and upcoming missions obtain or will obtain VSWIR spectra
that could allow retrieval of TCWV at horizontal resolutions from 20 to 100 m. Current examples include the Multi-Spectral Imager (MSI) on Sentinel-2 (Drusch et al., 2012), the PRecursore
IperSpettrale della Missione Applicativa (PRISMA, Candela et al., 2016), and the DLR Earth Sensing Imaging Spectrometer (DESIS, Krutz et al., 2019). Upcoming
missions such as NASA's Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation
(EMIT; Green and Thompson, 2020) and ESA's Copernicus
Hyperspectral Imaging Mission for the Environment (CHIME; e.g. Rast et al., 2019) will obtain a horizontal resolution of order 30–80 m, and this study will assess performance assuming footprint sizes of 40–50 m,
i.e. at the mid-point of that range.</p>
      <p id="d1e633">This footprint selection was made based on the resolution of available LES
output, and the analysis method is based on the output of retrievals
developed specifically for EMIT, which primarily retrieves TCWV to allow
atmospheric correction for its surface reflectance target observable. Other
instruments such as PRISMA or MSI may have different error characteristics,
but we treat retrieval errors in a general manner that could be expanded to
these other instruments.</p>
      <p id="d1e636">This study attempts to determine whether EMIT will be able to obtain
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over 0.5–1 km after accounting for (1) random retrieval
error, (2) systematic biases in retrieval mean and sensitivity, and (3) solar zenith angle.</p>
      <p id="d1e650">The PBL is of particular interest since it is the location where reflective
low clouds form, and in the Dorrestijn et al. (2018) analysis, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied more in the 850 hPa layer than the 300 or 500 hPa layers. However, previous analyses have generally been restricted to far
larger spatial ranges, with Dorrestijn et al. (2018) referring to 55–165 km scale variance as occurring at the “tiny scale”. Other
examples at higher resolution generally use airborne measurements, with few
calculations for separations under 1 km using onboard sensors
(Cho et al., 1999), using lidar at 5–100 km
(Fischer et al., 2013), or evaluating simulations with lidar for separations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11 km (Selz
et al., 2017).</p>
      <?pagebreak page119?><p id="d1e672">This study uses LES outputs and does not make any statements about the
realism or cause of the LES output <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values but instead aims solely to identify and quantify retrieval biases and errors. Its greatest
contribution is to demonstrate that directional calculation strategies can
remove biases in estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> introduced by the direct-beam
component of the solar path through the atmosphere.</p>
      <p id="d1e697">We show that, in a set of 23 LES snapshots, the non-vertical direct-beam
path prevents accurate retrieval of sub-kilometre <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when standard methods are naïvely applied. However, errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> depend
on the direction in which it is calculated relative to the solar azimuth,
and selecting the correct solar-aware direction eliminates the bias and
therefore overcomes a fundamental barrier to VSWIR estimation of sub-kilometre <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scaling. Diffuse sunlight is handled through a plane-parallel radiative
transfer approximation, which means that complex 3-D radiative effects are
neglected. In clear-sky areas near clouds, 3-D effects can brighten observed
spectra (Várnai and Marshak, 2009), with induced biases of
order <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25 % for VSWIR column CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> retrievals
(Massie et al., 2021). The consequences for hyperspectral TCWV
retrievals at 30–80 m horizontal resolution are not currently known,
although the effect on retrieved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would depend on the spatial
scaling of these TCWV biases. In Sect. 4 we propose a field experiment
design to test our conclusions. Spaceborne spectrometers measure light that
has passed along some path, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>↓</mml:mo><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
consisting of downward (Sun-to-surface, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mo>↓</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and upward (surface-to-sensor, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
components. Retrievals will respond to the path-integrated water vapour (PIWV) between the surface and top of atmosphere (TOA):
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M56" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PIWV</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOA</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">surface</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mo>↓</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">surface</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOA</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        Meanwhile the commonly desired value is the vertically integrated water
vapour, TCWV:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M57" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TCWV</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">surface</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOA</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        For a horizontally uniform <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> field (equivalent to “plane-parallel” in radiative transfer parlance) there is a simple geometric relationship between the two:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M59" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TCWV</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PIWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">uniform</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the cosine of the sensor-viewing zenith angle and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the cosine of the solar zenith angle. Despite the fact that real <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fields vary horizontally such that Eq. (6) is not strictly true, the VSWIR
community commonly assumes a plane-parallel atmosphere and reports the
retrieved value as being TCWV (Carbajal
Henken et al., 2015; Diedrich et al., 2015; Grossi et al., 2015; Nelson et
al., 2016; Noël et al., 2004; Preusker et al., 2021). Here we calculate
PIWV by tracing solar rays through 3-D LES output, but for consistency with VSWIR literature terminology, we relate it to an effective TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M64" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PIWV</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        Our retrieved values, TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, refer to estimates of this property. Figure 1 compares the true TCWV with TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
derived from ray tracing through 3-D LES output when solar zenith angle SZA is 45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and solar azimuth is at 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, meaning that the horizontal component of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>↓</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is in the negative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction. There is
an apparent “smearing” from Fig. 1a to b in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction, so we refer to these
solar-geometry-induced changes in TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> due to the horizontal variability in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> field as the “solar smearing” effect (for a simplified
illustration of the physical principles behind why our strategy is
anticipated to reduce biases in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, see Figs. S1–S3 in the Supplement).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1095">Integrated water path in a subsection of the ARM_18000s snapshot <bold>(a)</bold> in vertical columns directly over each footprint (i.e.
true TCWV) and <bold>(b)</bold> encountered by sunlight with SZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> viewed from nadir. The yellow arrow indicates the horizontal direction of the downward solar path.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1126">This consequence of solar and view geometry is well known; for example, Thompson et al. (2021) only used flight lines with
very low SZA to minimise its effect in a study of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However,
this severely limits viable data, so here we suggest a new method that exploits the directionality of the solar-smearing effect in order to perform
such calculations across a wider range of conditions. This paper uses the
solar-path-traced outputs of Richardson et al. (2021a) to
demonstrate that by calculating the structure function in a direction
perpendicular to the solar azimuth, the bias in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is removed
within the 23 LES snapshots considered. To our knowledge, this is the first
quantification of such a technique to mitigate solar-geometry-induced errors
in spatial statistics of retrieved atmospheric properties.</p>
      <p id="d1e1151">If this result can be extended to the real world, then upcoming high-spatial-resolution spaceborne VSWIR spectrometers will provide a
breakthrough for analysis of moisture scaling across unprecedented spatial
scales. Our<?pagebreak page120?> retrievals are restricted to clear-sky areas over land, but this still represents a substantial advance in the current capacities of other
instrument types. Lidar measurements avoid the solar-path issue and can retrieve vertical information including above clouds, but current and
anticipated spaceborne lidars do not offer VSWIR's fine spatial resolution
or broad spatial coverage from a wide swath. Sounders such as infrared can
profile the atmosphere but have footprints that are too large for sub-kilometre exploration.</p>
      <p id="d1e1155">Even airborne measurements, which offer far less coverage than spaceborne
sensors, may suffer from their own challenges. Evidence suggests that the
tendency of flights to follow isobars rather than maintain altitude can
introduce height variations that blend vertical variation into horizontal
calculations and result in exponents similar to those predicted due to
buoyancy's vertical effect (Lovejoy et al.,
2004; Pinel et al., 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e1158">The VSWIR sampling technique introduced here could greatly expand the range
of conditions under which spatial scaling of water vapour can be quantified.
In Sect. 2 we describe the LES output, simulated retrievals, and how
retrieval errors and solar path are accounted for in calculation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Section 3 presents the results and Sect. 4 discusses and
concludes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Data and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Large eddy simulation output</title>
      <p id="d1e1187">We use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and cloud water (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) output from the five LES runs of shallow convection as in Richardson et al. (2021a), with four cloudy cases (ARM, ARM_lsconv, BOMEX, RICO)
and one case in which clouds do not form (DRY). Simulations use two models,
EULAG for the ARM cases (Prusa et al., 2008) and
JPL-UCONN LES for the others (Matheou
and Chung, 2014). Simulation set-ups are described in Richardson et al. (2021a) and the associated references (Brown et al., 2002; Kurowski et al., 2020; Matheou and Chung, 2014; Siebesma et
al., 2003; vanZanten et al., 2011), and while some simulations represent
oceanic boundary layers, we simply assume a land surface for the retrievals. Static reanalysis profiles from MERRA-2
(Gelaro et al., 2017) are appended
above the LES domain, but the LES domains were shown to capture horizontal
variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from analysis of LES output and airborne lidar profiles over the Pacific (Bedka et al., 2021). The 23 selected snapshots
are labelled by their time stamp; e.g. DRY_7200s represents 2 h into the DRY simulation. The LES output horizontal resolution
ranges from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 50 m; here we degrade the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m cases to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m resolution to make the spatial difference
statistics more consistent.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Generating retrieved TCWV fields</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>2.2.1</label><title>Emulator development</title>
      <p id="d1e1274">The methodology here applies the results of Richardson et al. (2021a), which developed a TCWV retrieval emulator to rapidly generate TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fields given TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from 3-D LES <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
fields. This emulator was developed from results of an observing system
simulation experiment (OSSE). Our differential optical absorption
spectroscopy (DOAS) retrieval requires an accurate representation of water
vapour spectroscopy, so we selected the MODTRAN6.0 radiative transfer model
for forward and inverse calculations (Berk et al.,
2014, 2015). The retrievals were performed using the Imaging Spectrometer
Optimal Fitting (ISOFIT) code (Thompson et
al., 2018, 2019) with EMIT instrument characteristics and noise. ISOFIT
simultaneously retrieves the surface reflectance spectrum (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), aerosol optical depth (AOD), and TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from radiance over <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">380</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–2500 nm. The retrieval includes a lookup table (LUT) that relates TCWV and AOD to radiance properties, and this LUT is
generated by radiative transfer using uniformly scaled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and aerosol
extinction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ext</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) profiles to match desired TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
AOD.</p>
      <p id="d1e1381">Some studies performed radiative transfer over complete LES fields, but we
found that full-field simulations were too computationally expensive given
our toolkit and requirements. For example, Gristey et al. (2019) performed 3-D radiative transfer
simulations over full LES fields, but they were interested in broadband
fluxes and so could use lower spectral resolution (370 wavelengths versus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 000 here). Furthermore, their LES output was smaller
(average of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 000  footprints versus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 000  here), and this work must consider numerous combinations of properties such as
surface type and solar zenith angle.</p>
      <p id="d1e1405">To reduce computational expense, the Richardson et al. (2021a) OSSE selected 101 footprints from each LES snapshot and used their vertical
profiles as MODTRAN6.0 input to generate the true forward radiance spectra.
MODTRAN6.0 is a plane-parallel radiative transfer model which must assume a
horizontally uniform atmosphere but accounts for solar and view geometry, so
this step applies Eq. (6). From the 101 pairs of TCWV and TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given combination of surface type and SZA, a linear relationship between TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (in this case, TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> TCWV) and TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was found:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M103" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the slope and intercept and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> a random sample from a normal distribution whose standard deviation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> quantifies the random retrieval error. The parameter
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the sensitivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is related to the bias, although it is only equal to the bias if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.
Fits at different time steps from each LES simulation were not significantly different from each other, but parameters<?pagebreak page121?> did differ between simulations. To
account for this, emulators were generated separately for each LES
simulation, but footprints from all snapshots in each simulation were combined, resulting in a sample size of 303–707 to estimate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in each case (parameter estimates stabilised around <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1636">TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of TCWV along with emulator fits: <bold>(a)</bold> for subsets from all ARM snapshots with SZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over a cropland surface. <bold>(b)</bold> Over two typical different surfaces, ARM_18000s only, <bold>(c)</bold> with different SZAs, <bold>(d)</bold> when changing a retrieval's assumed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <bold>(e)</bold> when changing AOD.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1714">Figure 2a shows the linear relationship from all
ARM snapshots, while Fig. 2b–e show how the
parameters may vary with surface type, SZA, retrieval-assumed atmospheric
profile shapes, and AOD.</p>
      <p id="d1e1717">Figure 2b shows that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varies between a
vegetation surface and a mineral surface. Surface type can vary greatly on sub-kilometre scales, and within-scene transitions between vegetation and mineral surfaces
would introduce artificial variance in TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> differences either side
of transition boundaries and potentially affect the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are small when considering mixtures of
vegetation or mixtures of urban-mineral surfaces, so we limit our structure-function analysis to mixed-vegetation or urban-mineral surfaces.</p>
      <p id="d1e1773">From Fig. 2c, TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is only weakly sensitive to SZA from 14 to 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the derived parameters do not differ significantly, and for SZA from 14 to 45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are extremely similar. From this we argue that we can use a single set of derived parameters for each LES case for SZA up to 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1821">Next, we note that absorption line broadening depends on thermodynamics and so argue that the structure of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can change <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For example,
changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at a lower, warmer level will result in stronger changes in
absorption at the edges of bands compared with changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at a higher,
cooler level. Figure 2d presents results from one
test that support this argument, when the atmosphere used in the retrieval's
LUT is changed from mid-latitude summer to tropical and the parameters change. Similarly, substantial changes in the forward model <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> profiles change the derived parameters (not shown). We note that Fig. 2a contains results from different LES time steps in which the atmospheric profiles evolved, but this evolution was too small to generate any
detectable differences in the Eq. (8) parameters.</p>
      <p id="d1e1889">Finally, we considered the relationship between AOD and the parameters in
Eq. (8). In all other panels AOD varied randomly from 0.1 to 0.2 between footprints, but in Fig. 2e the simulations are
performed with AOD fixed across all footprints at either 0.05, 0.20, or 0.35. Changing AOD by 0.3 results in a change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equivalent to
approximately 0.3 % of TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is a smaller change than
between common surface types (Fig. 2b), and AOD
varies far more smoothly at sub-kilometre horizontal scales than surface type, so we anticipated that our results would be robust to some types of spatial
aerosol variability. In Sect. 3.2 we show how vertical gradients of up to
0.3 AOD km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" 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> can have a minor effect on derived
exponents.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>2.2.2</label><title>Generating retrieved fields</title>
      <p id="d1e1932">For SZA from 0 to 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in increments of 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the PIWV was calculated by ray tracing from the top of the atmosphere to centre of each surface grid cell and then directly up with a solar azimuth of 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This geometry represents a nadir instrument view angle, and PIWV is then
converted to TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> via Eq. (7), which accounts for SZA. This
TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is then used as input for Eq. (8), thereby generating
TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fields for analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e1990">As mentioned in Sect. 2.2.1, each separate LES case has a unique set of
Eq. (8) parameters, and the fit is generated from plane-parallel radiative transfer calculations. This means that horizontal variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is not
explicitly accounted for, but we argue that the derivation includes a range
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> profiles, and there is no fundamental reason why <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">r</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>↓</mml:mo><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> should introduce fundamental
differences that should affect our Eq. (8) relationship. Therefore, we
assume that the relationship between TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and PIWV will be captured by Eq. (4).</p>
      <p id="d1e2043">The same ray-traced calculation is repeated with cloud water <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
obtain cloud water path (CWP). Footprints are then flagged as cloudy or
shaded when CWP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" 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> mm for any of the selected
SZAs so as to avoid changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to changes in the
footprints considered. This CWP is equivalent to approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 in a typical sub-adiabatic cloud (Szczodrak et al., 2001).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Calculation of spatial statistics and removal of random error</title>
      <p id="d1e2118"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated from the LES field of TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in one horizontal
direction at a time by including all pairs of footprints separated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in that direction provided that neither of the footprints in the pair is
flagged as cloudy or shadowed for any SZA. To calculate along the LES <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, each different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> location is effectively treated as a 1-D field and its set of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values is calculated, and then all the 1-D subsets are concatenated and
the reported <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the expectation value of this combined dataset.</p>
      <p id="d1e2213">The horizontal directions are either along the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis (“perpendicular” to
the sunlight) or along the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis (the “parallel” case).
Figure 3 displays example <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for clear-sky
TCWV and their associated scaling parameters, i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, showing that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> will depend on the range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> over which it is calculated. The variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be due to changes in physical processes in addition to
imperfect process representation in the LES, such as non-physical dissipation at separations smaller than several grid cells
(Brown et al., 2002). This study is
not concerned with the interpretation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but rather with the
accuracy with which it can be obtained, so we do not explore this further
and follow Thompson et al. (2021) in calculating
the fit over <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–1 km.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e2343"><bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated from TCWV for two LES snapshots as a
function of separation distance, with the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gradient associated with a
passive tracer in turbulence following Kolmogorov theory also shown; <bold>(b)</bold> exponent calculated locally at each separation distance.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page122?><p id="d1e2381">We estimate and remove the measurement noise following the method of
Richardson et al. (2021a). They derived a
structure-function-based method to estimate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from
the TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> field, thereby allowing better estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by subtracting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from Eq. (5). This method involves
calculating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in one horizontal direction at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e.
separation of one grid cell, 40 or 50 m) and then smoothing the field by a factor of 2 in the perpendicular direction and recalculating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which we label <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. At these small separations, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>≫</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e2556">We evaluate the sensitivity of our derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to uncertainty in
the retrieval emulator; when calculating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the retrieved fields, the emulator changes the retrieved value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M190" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          and the estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><label>10</label><mml:math id="M192" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          This shows that both biases in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (“retrieval sensitivity”) and the
magnitude of random errors can change the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Richardson
et al. (2021a) showed that errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were the largest
source of uncertainty in estimating the spatial standard deviation. We will therefore perform sensitivity tests for a range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values and
show only one <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> case since results were insensitive
to changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of up to a factor of 4 scaling.</p>
      <p id="d1e2795">The final question we address is whether the scaling exponent estimated at
the very high spatial resolution of missions such as EMIT will be
fundamentally different from that obtained by current sensors such as MERIS
and MODIS that can provide TCWV at a nominal resolution near <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. Large-scale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> narrows as spatial resolution
coarsens, but it is not clear how this affects the spatial scaling
properties considered here, so for this test we sequentially degrade a TCWV
field from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m and calculate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at each resolution.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page123?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Variation of horizontal $\zeta _{{2}}$ with height}?><title>Variation of horizontal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with height</title>
      <p id="d1e2902">Figure 4 shows how the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated for
PCWV integrated up to different heights varies within the PBL but that the value becomes fixed by the PBL top. That is, estimates made from TCWV refer
to the value for PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, but this conceals vertical structure within the PBL. We can therefore confirm that our derived values are indeed
representative of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, but further work is needed to determine the precise utility of statistics of PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and, furthermore, we note that corresponding estimates of PBL height from other
sources may be necessary to help interpret measurements of PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> scaling.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2966">Calculated structure function exponents using separation distance
0.5–1 km directly on LES output, calculated for integrated water vapour up
to each labelled capping altitude, every 0.5 km. The PBL top derived from
the location of the maximum vertical gradient in potential temperature is
shown as a horizontal bar for each profile.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Retrieval errors and $\zeta _{{2}}$}?><title>Retrieval errors and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e2994">The results from all sensitivity tests applied to the clear-sky TCWV in the
ARM_18000s snapshot are shown in Fig. 5; results are similar for other snapshots (not shown). Figure 3a shows that random errors that we estimate will be typical for EMIT and result in substantial changes to calculated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with a notable flattening over much of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> range and an unacceptably large error in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from retrieved TCWV. Our
error correction reduces the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> error from 53.1 % to 1.4 %.
Figure 5b shows that errors in the sensitivity
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is the emulator parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (8), shift <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but do not substantially affect the gradient over <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–1 km, and this conclusion also applies in Fig. 5c when biases in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are combined with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the error correction is applied. These
results show that even large biases in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which contribute
proportionally to estimates of errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, do not have a
substantial effect on derived scaling properties.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e3153">Sensitivity of derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to retrieval errors and spatial
resolution; the legends in each case report the calculated exponent from a fit over separations 0.5–1 km, the region which is shaded grey in each
panel. In each case “truth” refers to the value calculated from TCWV at a native LES resolution of 50 m. <bold>(a)</bold> Blue shows <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from retrieved TCWV including random error only, and orange the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> after subtracting the estimated retrieval variance. <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated with no random error but non-unity sensitivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as defined by the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trend parameter in Eq. (8). <bold>(c)</bold> The result when combining random error and sensitivity error, after subtraction of the random error estimated from each retrieved field. <bold>(d)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated after smoothing the field resolution sequentially to 250 m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 250 m. <bold>(e)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated for a horizontally varying aerosol field where TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> changes sinusoidally by 0.3 % every 1 km, representing a change of 0.3 in AOD based on the TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> response from Fig. 1e.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3299">Figure 5d confirms that scaling properties are
sensitive to the measurement resolution, with derived exponents varying
unpredictably from 0.61 to 0.73 with resolution. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m there are only five points included in the regression. Furthermore, more footprints
will be partially cloudy, meaning that the samples included will be too
small for robust estimation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We did not apply a matched
cloud mask for this test and expect that this will lead to more uncertain estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Tests across all 23 snapshots show that most
return a higher, and more uncertain, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when spatial resolution
is degraded (not shown). This points to new information being obtained from
finer-spatial-resolution retrievals provided that the slanted solar paths do not destroy the correspondence between true and retrieved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3361">The final panel, Fig. 5e, shows a sensitivity test to strong spatial gradients in AOD. From Fig. 2e, a change of 0.3 in AOD results in a difference of 0.3 % in
TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in ARM_18000s, and other tests found a smaller
fractional response in DRY_7200s (not shown). We picked the
ARM_18000s results as the worst case and allowed TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
to vary sinusoidally in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.15 % with a
wavelength of 2 km. This approximates the effect of a change of approximately 0.3 AOD every 1 km. This relatively extreme AOD gradient
changes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 % in all cases except DRY (not
shown). In the DRY LES run our aerosol gradients induce a factor of 2 change
in time step DRY_7200s and 10 % in other time steps. This larger relative error may be related to their small spatial variability of
TCWV and low values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3426">This test represents a very large horizontal change in AOD, and since ISOFIT
simultaneously retrieves AOD, such cases could be identified. Overall, we conclude that for scenes where AOD is of order 0.35 or less and horizontal
gradients are smaller than 0.3 AOD km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" 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>, our results will generally be
robust to typical aerosol variability. In practice, we would recommend
testing each case using coincidentally retrieved AOD fields along with the
estimated sensitivity of TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to AOD to calculate a likely effect of
special AOD variability. This may identify cases where aerosol variability
affects derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Solar zenith angle, calculation direction, and $\zeta _{{2}}$}?><title>Solar zenith angle, calculation direction, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e3480">In our final tests we compare <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated on the
TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fields with SZA changed from 15 to 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of the “true” value obtained from the TCWV field. The TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values are those using each simulation's emulator parameters and include the random
error correction, while the true values refer to the columns directly over
each footprint with no retrieval error. All use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–50 m with
fits calculated over <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–1000 m, and calculations are either along the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis and parallel to the solar azimuth or along the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis and perpendicular to the solar azimuth.</p>
      <p id="d1e3562">Figure 6 shows that there is substantial spread
introduced for realistic SZA, with a strong tendency for bias in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to increase with SZA when calculated parallel to the solar azimuth.
This spread and apparent bias are greatly reduced when the calculation is performed perpendicularly to the solar azimuth. In the parallel case there are
still significant differences (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05) between true and retrieved
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value threshold is calculated as 1.96 times the
standard error of the difference in best-fit parameters derived from the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gradient.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e3647">Estimated clear-sky <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over separations 0.5–1 km in
all 23 snapshots as a function of the true value. The error bars are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the trend fit.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3680">Figure 7 shows that both bias and error range expand
with SZA when calculating in the solar azimuth direction, but the median
(and mean, not shown) bias is eliminated by calculating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
direction perpendicular to the solar azimuth. The spread is also wider in
the parallel case, the 5 %–95 % range of differences relative to the
truth is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.04–0.49 versus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.20–0.22 when calculating perpendicular,
while the standard deviation is 0.18 for parallel versus 0.13 for
perpendicular.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e3710">Median and 5 %–95 % range of retrieved minus true <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of solar zenith angle. “Parallel” refers to
calculation along the solar azimuth direction, and “Perpendicular” refers
to calculation perpendicular to it.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/15/117/2022/amt-15-117-2022-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page125?><p id="d1e3730">These results show that realistic SZAs result in path-integrated water vapour structures that have somewhat different characteristics at a 0.5–1 km
scale than that of the PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> over each footprint. This results in additional error to estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, but appropriate calculation
strategies that account for solar azimuth angle can reduce the magnitude of
this error and suppress systematic error.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3763">We have shown that for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fields simulated in five LES runs of shallow
convective PBLs, a novel strategy accounting for solar azimuth eliminates
the SZA-induced bias in calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.5–1 km from
high-spatial-resolution VSWIR retrievals. This substantially increases the
range of applicable   geometries for which VSWIR retrievals can be
used to estimate spatial scaling statistics. For example, in the airborne
case studies of Thompson et al. (2021), only flight
lines with SZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> could be used, while our method
promises unbiased estimates of sub-kilometre <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for SZA up to 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Removal of the bias is particularly important for
applications, since <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-scaling analyses using spaceborne data typically group or average over many sets of measurements (e.g. Kahn and Teixeira, 2009), and this averaging will not reduce
bias in the way that it reduces RMSE. For the first time it also allows
calculation of high-resolution <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> statistics over mid-latitude and polar areas of the globe that do not experience low solar zenith angles.</p>
      <p id="d1e3846">This approach should be applicable to any instrument that obtains TCWV from
VSWIR with a horizontal resolution approaching 50 m, not just EMIT. Operationally, this requires sufficiently long, continuous sampling
perpendicular to the solar azimuth. We have not analysed length requirements
here but note that for airborne campaigns this is easily addressed on a flight-to-flight basis. For spaceborne instruments, the sampling will depend
on the swath size and orbital geometry. EMIT's approximately 75 km swath
(Bradley et al., 2020) spans distances larger than
those considered here, and so we expect sampling to be sufficient regardless
of orbital configuration. Similarly, ESA's CHIME contractor notes a 128 km
swath, and similar capacities are expected for the missions that address
NASA's Surface Biology and Geology (SBG) and Aerosols, Clouds, Convection
and Precipitation (ACCP) designated observables. However, we note that it
will be necessary to understand the implications of non-uniform footprint
size- and footprint-dependent errors determined from the on-orbit instrument performance in order to increase the confidence in estimates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from these spaceborne sensors.</p>
      <p id="d1e3860">Our analysis is based on the retrieval outputs of Richardson et al. (2021a), which showed how random retrieval error <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be identified and removed from TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> fields by
exploiting the properties of TCWV <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at small scales. It also showed
that errors in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> profiles assumed in the retrieval could affect
retrieval sensitivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dTCWV</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We have shown
here that to obtain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> it is critical to remove the effect of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but that while errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the largest error source for estimates of spatial standard deviation, they do not
greatly affect the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3978">Our results were only determined for areas where the surface type is
composed either of mixed vegetation or mixed urban-mineral surfaces, so
either a simultaneous surface classification (as provided by ISOFIT) or
ancillary surface information would be required. We also identified that
horizontal gradients of 0.3 AOD km<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> or less have only a small effect on derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in most cases, and since ISOFIT simultaneously
retrieves AOD, it seems likely that cases where this is not true could be identified. However, we highlight further investigation of the effect of
realistic AOD structure as a useful future investigation. A major limitation
of this study is that 1-D radiative transfer was used to derive the
relationship between TCWV and TCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ret</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, while clouds can affect nearby clear-sky scenes through 3-D radiative effects. Future work could address this by using a 3-D radiative transfer code (e.g. Evans, 1998; Emde et al., 2011) as the forward
model in an improved OSSE.</p>
      <p id="d1e4014">Ideally this sampling strategy could be field tested, and a strategy to do
so would be to perform flights both parallel and perpendicular to the solar
azimuth with collocated<?pagebreak page126?> retrievals of TCWV from VSWIR and an independent
instrument that is not affected by SZA, such as a differential absorption
lidar (DIAL) or passive sounding instrument. The non-VSWIR instrument would
allow calculation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that is not affected by sunlight path,
and the conclusions of this study would be supported if the VSWIR and
non-VSWIR estimates showed good agreement for the perpendicular but not
parallel flight paths. We highlight the High Altitude Lidar Observatory
(Bedka et al., 2021) as a candidate sensor for such an
experiment.</p>
      <p id="d1e4028">For science applications, it would also be necessary to identify which
scenes are likely to satisfy our requirements: for example, conditions proximate to deep convection may have more substantial above-PBL variability
at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 km scales and result in weaker correspondence between TCWV
and PCWV<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PBL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. In addition, it may be necessary to identify PBL height, which would require independent information from weather forecast models or reanalysis, in situ measurements, or other instruments. Furthermore, users would
also need to consider the effect of sampling biases that may depend on cloud
fraction or on the presence of non-isotropic variability in features such as
horizontal convective rolls (e.g. as explored in Carbajal Henken et al., 2015). If locations commonly experience meteorological
features with a preferential orientation, for example due to orography or a
coastline, then this method may not adequately capture its full structure.</p>
      <p id="d1e4047">Finally, the interpretation of these exponents has not been considered in
detail here, but future work could proceed either observationally or theoretically. For an observational study, the relationship between
retrieved exponents and other properties, such as later convective
initiation, could be investigated. A theoretical study would need to apply current understanding of turbulent physics to address precisely the problem
of the horizontal variability of vertically averaged profiles. Further in the future, perhaps multi-angle imaging spectroscopy could provide profiling
from VSWIR measurements via computed tomography, which has been demonstrated
to retrieve aerosol profiles in some conditions using the Multi-Angle
Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) on Terra (Garay et al.,
2016), and upper-tropospheric water vapour profiles from airborne measurements with the Gimballed Limb Observer for Radiance Imaging of the
Atmosphere (GLORIA, Ungermann et al., 2015). We
are not aware of any likely short-term space missions that would allow water
vapour tomography from VSWIR retrievals at EMIT-like horizontal resolution,
with the upcoming Multiangle Imager for Aerosols (MAIA, Diner et al., 2018) having a horizontal resolution similar to that of MODIS. If such an instrument were launched, high-spatial-resolution
tomography would also be subject to the smearing effect from the
non-vertical solar path and so may benefit from our proposal, although a
detailed study of the particular instrument and retrieval set-up would be required.</p>
      <p id="d1e4050">Our main conclusion is that a novel sampling strategy can allow a
breakthrough in space-based measurement of PBL water vapour scaling and that while individual uncertainties and geographical sampling may vary with
the mission, this principle will apply to the array of upcoming VSWIR
instruments whose spectra will allow column water vapour retrievals at
resolutions from 30 to 80 m or better. The resulting statistics offer a new check on the validity of high-resolution atmospheric models and inform
sub-grid parameterisations of coarser ESMs.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4057">The MODTRAN radiative transfer code is
available at <uri>http://modtran.spectral.com/</uri>, licence required, last access: 19 March 2020, Berk et al., 2014, 2015)
and requires a licence. The LES profiles used in the emulator development and the 2-D LES output fields used in this analysis are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5717263" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5717263</ext-link> (Richardson et al., 2021b).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e4066">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-117-2022-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-117-2022-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4075">MTR processed the data and generated
the figures. DRT developed the retrieval code (Isofit) used to generate the
retrieval emulators. MJK generated and provided the large eddy simulation
output. MDL initialised the project and worked with MTR on analysis design
and data interpretation. All the authors contributed to the conceptualisation, writing, and editing.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4081">The contact author has declared that neither they nor their co-authors have any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e4087">Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4093">This research was carried out at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA,
USA, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Mark T. Richardson thanks Amin Nehrir and Brian Carroll of NASA Langley for helpful discussion regarding HALO lidar data.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e4098">This research has been supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (grant no. 80NM0018F0631).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4104">This paper was edited by Joanna Joiner and reviewed by Christoph Kiemle, Alexander Marshak, and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Arakawa, A., Jung, J.-H., and Wu, C.-M.: Toward unification of the multiscale modeling of the atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3731–3742, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3731-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-3731-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bacmeister, J. T., Eckermann, S. D., Newman, P. A., Lait, L., Chan, K. R.,
Loewenstein, M., Proffitt, M. H., and Gary, B. L.: Stratospheric horizontal
wavenumber spectra of winds, potential temperature, and atmospheric tracers
observed by high-altitude aircraft, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 101,
9441–9470, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD03835" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95JD03835</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bedka, K. M., Nehrir, A. R., Kavaya, M., Barton-Grimley, R., Beaubien, M., Carroll, B., Collins, J., Cooney, J., Emmitt, G. D., Greco, S., Kooi, S., Lee, T., Liu, Z., Rodier, S., and Skofronick-Jackson, G.: Airborne lidar observations of wind, water vapor, and aerosol profiles during the NASA Aeolus calibration and validation (Cal/Val) test flight campaign, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 4305–4334, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4305-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-14-4305-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Berk, A., Conforti, P., Kennett, R., Perkins, T., Hawes, F., and van den
Bosch, J.: MODTRAN6: a major upgrade of the MODTRAN radiative transfer code,
in: Proceedings Volume 9088, Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral,
Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery XX, edited by: Velez-Reyes, M. and Kruse, F. A., SPIE, Baltimore, MD, USA, 90880H, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Berk, A., Conforti, P., and Hawes, F.: An accelerated line-by-line option for
MODTRAN combining on-the-fly generation of line center absorption within 0.1 cm<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>​​​​​​​ bins and pre-computed line tails, in: Proceedings Volume 9472,
Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and
Ultraspectral Imagery XXI, edited by: Velez-Reyes, M. and Kruse, F. A.,  SPIE, Baltimore, MD, USA, 947217, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boffetta, G., De Lillo, F., Mazzino, A., and Musacchio, S.: Bolgiano scale in
confined Rayleigh–Taylor turbulence, J. Fluid Mech., 690, 426–440,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2011.446" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/jfm.2011.446</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bolgiano, R.: Turbulent spectra in a stably stratified atmosphere, J.
Geophys. Res., 64, 2226–2229, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ064i012p02226" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JZ064i012p02226</ext-link>, 1959.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bradley, C. L., Thingvold, E., Moore, L. B., Haag, J. M., Raouf, N. A.,
Mouroulis, P., and Green, R. O.: Optical design of the Earth Surface Mineral
Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) imaging spectrometer, in: Imaging
Spectrometry XXIV: Applications, Sensors, and Processing, edited by:
Mouroulis, P. and Ientilucci, E. J.,  SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, online only, p. 1, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brown, A. R., Cederwall, R. T., Chlond, A., Duynkerke, P. G., Golaz, J.-C.,
Khairoutdinov, M., Lewellen, D. C., Lock, A. P., MacVean, M. K., Moeng,
C.-H., Neggers, R. A. J., Siebesma, A. P., and Stevens, B.: Large-eddy
simulation of the diurnal cycle of shallow cumulus convection over land, Q.
J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 128, 1075–1093, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1256/003590002320373210" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1256/003590002320373210</ext-link>,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Candela, L., Formaro, R., Guarini, R., Loizzo, R., Longo, F., and Varacalli,
G.: The PRISMA mission, in: 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote
Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), IEEE, Beijing, China, 10–15 July 2016,
253–256, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Carbajal Henken, C. K., Diedrich, H., Preusker, R., and Fischer, J.: MERIS
full-resolution total column water vapor: Observing horizontal convective
rolls, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 10074–10081, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066650" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL066650</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cho, J. Y. N., Zhu, Y., Newell, R. E., Anderson, B. E., Barrick, J. D.,
Gregory, G. L., Sachse, G. W., Carroll, M. A., and Albercook, G. M.:
Horizontal wavenumber spectra of winds, temperature, and trace gases during
the Pacific Exploratory Missions: 1. Climatology, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
104, 5697–5716, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD01825" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98JD01825</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Diedrich, H., Preusker, R., Lindstrot, R., and Fischer, J.: Retrieval of daytime total columnar water vapour from MODIS measurements over land surfaces, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 823–836, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-823-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-823-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Diner, D. J., Boland, S. W., Brauer, M., Bruegge, C., Burke, K. A., Chipman,
R., Di Girolamo, L., Garay, M. J., Hasheminassab, S., and Hyer, E.: Advances
in multiangle satellite remote sensing of speciated airborne particulate
matter and association with adverse health effects: from MISR to MAIA, J.
Appl. Remote Sens., 16,  042603,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.12.042603" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1117/1.JRS.12.042603</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dorrestijn, J., Kahn, B. H., Teixeira, J., and Irion, F. W.: Instantaneous variance scaling of AIRS thermodynamic profiles using a circular area Monte Carlo approach, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 2717–2733, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2717-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-2717-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Drusch, M., Del Bello, U., Carlier, S., Colin, O., Fernandez, V., Gascon,
F., Hoersch, B., Isola, C., Laberinti, P., Martimort, P., Meygret, A.,
Spoto, F., Sy, O., Marchese, F., and Bargellini, P.: Sentinel-2: ESA's
Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services, Remote Sens.
Environ., 120, 25–36, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Emde, C., Buras, R., and Mayer, B.: ALIS: An efficient method to compute high
spectral resolution polarized solar radiances using the Monte Carlo
approach, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 112, 1622–1631,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.03.018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.03.018</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Evans, K. F.: The Spherical Harmonics Discrete Ordinate Method for
Three-Dimensional Atmospheric Radiative Transfer, J. Atmos. Sci., 55,
429–446, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;0429:TSHDOM&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;0429:TSHDOM&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fischer, L., Kiemle, C., and Craig, G. C.: Height-resolved variability of
midlatitude tropospheric water vapor measured by an airborne lidar, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 39, L06803, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050621" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011GL050621</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fischer, L., Craig, G. C., and Kiemle, C.: Horizontal structure function and
vertical correlation analysis of mesoscale water vapor variability observed
by airborne lidar, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 7579–7590,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50588" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50588</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gage, K. S. and Nastrom, G. D.: On the spectrum of atmospheric velocity
fluctuations seen by MST/ST radar and their interpretation, Radio Sci.,
20, 1339–1347, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/RS020i006p01339" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/RS020i006p01339</ext-link>, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garay, M. J., Davis, A. B., and Diner, D. J.: Tomographic reconstruction of
an aerosol plume using passive multiangle observations from the MISR
satellite instrument, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,  12590–12596, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071479" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL071479</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs,
L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan,
K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A.,
da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D.,
Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M.,
Schubert, S. D.<?pagebreak page128?>, Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective
Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate,
30, 5419–5454, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Golaz, J.-C., Larson, V. E., and Cotton, W. R.: A PDF-Based Model for
Boundary Layer Clouds. Part I: Method and Model Description, J. Atmos. Sci.,
59, 3540–3551, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;3540:APBMFB&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;3540:APBMFB&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Green, R. O. and Thompson, D. R.: An Earth Science Imaging Spectroscopy
Mission: The Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT), in:
IGARSS 2020 – 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium, online only,   26 September–2 October 2020,
IEEE, 6262–6265, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gristey, J. J., Feingold, G., Glenn, I. B., Schmidt, K. S., and Chen, H.:
Surface Solar Irradiance in Continental Shallow Cumulus Fields: Observations
and Large-Eddy Simulation, J. Atmos. Sci., 77, 1065–1080,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0261.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-19-0261.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Grossi, M., Valks, P., Loyola, D., Aberle, B., Slijkhuis, S., Wagner, T., Beirle, S., and Lang, R.: Total column water vapour measurements from GOME-2 MetOp-A and MetOp-B, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1111–1133, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1111-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-1111-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kahn, B. H. and Teixeira, J.: A Global Climatology of Temperature and Water
Vapor Variance Scaling from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, J. Climate,
22, 5558–5576, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2934.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JCLI2934.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kahn, B. H., Teixeira, J., Fetzer, E. J., Gettelman, A., Hristova-Veleva, S.
M., Huang, X., Kochanski, A. K., Köhler, M., Krueger, S. K., Wood, R., and Zhao, M.: Temperature and Water Vapor Variance Scaling in Global Models:
Comparisons to Satellite and Aircraft Data, J. Atmos. Sci., 68,
2156–2168, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JAS3737.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011JAS3737.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Krutz, D., Müller, R., Knodt, U., Günther, B., Walter, I.,
Sebastian, I., Säuberlich, T., Reulke, R., Carmona, E., Eckardt, A.,
Venus, H., Fischer, C., Zender, B., Arloth, S., Lieder, M., Neidhardt, M.,
Grote, U., Schrandt, F., Gelmi, S., and Wojtkowiak, A.: The Instrument Design
of the DLR Earth Sensing Imaging Spectrometer (DESIS), Sensors, 19, 1622,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071622" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/s19071622</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kunnen, R. P. J., Clercx, H. J. H., Geurts, B. J., van Bokhoven, L. J. A.,
Akkermans, R. A. D., and Verzicco, R.: Numerical and experimental
investigation of structure-function scaling in turbulent Rayleigh-Bénard
convection, Phys. Rev. E, 77, 016302, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.77.016302" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1103/PhysRevE.77.016302</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kurowski, M. J., Grabowski, W. W., and Smolarkiewicz, P. K.: Anelastic and
Compressible Simulation of Moist Dynamics at Planetary Scales, J. Atmos.
Sci., 72, 3975–3995, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0107.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-15-0107.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kurowski, M. J., Grabowski, W. W., Suselj, K., and Teixeira, J.: The Strong
Impact of Weak Horizontal Convergence on Continental Shallow Convection, J.
Atmos. Sci., 77, 3119–3137, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0351.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-19-0351.1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D., and Tuck, A. F.: Fractal aircraft trajectories
and nonclassical turbulent exponents, Phys. Rev. E, 70, 036306,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.036306" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1103/PhysRevE.70.036306</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lovejoy, S., Tuck, A. F., Hovde, S. J., and Schertzer, D.: Is isotropic
turbulence relevant in the atmosphere?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34,  L15802,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029359" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GL029359</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Massie, S. T., Cronk, H., Merrelli, A., O'Dell, C., Schmidt, K. S., Chen, H., and Baker, D.: Analysis of 3D cloud effects in OCO-2 XCO2 retrievals, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1475–1499, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1475-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-14-1475-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Matheou, G. and Chung, D.: Large-Eddy Simulation of Stratified Turbulence.
Part II: Application of the Stretched-Vortex Model to the Atmospheric
Boundary Layer, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4439–4460,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0306.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-13-0306.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nelson, R. R., Crisp, D., Ott, L. E., and O'Dell, C. W.: High-accuracy
measurements of total column water vapor from the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory-2, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12261–12269,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071200" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL071200</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Noël, S., Buchwitz, M., and Burrows, J. P.: First retrieval of global water vapour column amounts from SCIAMACHY measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 111–125, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-111-2004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-4-111-2004</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Obukhov, A. M.: On the influence of buoyancy forces on the structure of the
temperature field in a turbulent flow, Dokl. Acad. Nauk. SSST., 125,   p. 1246, 1959.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Perraud, E., Couvreux, F., Malardel, S., Lac, C., Masson, V., and Thouron,
O.: Evaluation of Statistical Distributions for the Parametrization of
Subgrid Boundary-Layer Clouds, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 140, 263–294,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-011-9607-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10546-011-9607-3</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pinel, J., Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D., and Tuck, A. F.: Joint
horizontal-vertical anisotropic scaling, isobaric and isoheight wind
statistics from aircraft data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39,  L11803,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051689" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL051689</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pressel, K. G. and Collins, W. D.: First-Order Structure Function Analysis
of Statistical Scale Invariance in the AIRS-Observed Water Vapor Field, J.
Climate, 25, 5538–5555, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00374.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00374.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Preusker, R., Carbajal Henken, C., and Fischer, J.: Retrieval of Daytime
Total Column Water Vapour from OLCI Measurements over Land Surfaces, Remote
Sens., 13, 932, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050932" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs13050932</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Prusa, J. M., Smolarkiewicz, P. K., and Wyszogrodzki, A. A.: EULAG, a
computational model for multiscale flows, Comput. Fluids, 37, 1193–1207,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2007.12.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.compfluid.2007.12.001</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Rast, M., Ananasso, C., Bach, H., Ben-Dor, E., Chabrillat, S., Colombo, R.,
Del Bello, U., Feret, J., Giardino, C., Green, R., Guanter, L., Marsh, S.,
Nieke, J., CCH, O., Rum, G., Schaepman, M., Schlerf, M., Skidmore, A., and
Strobl, P.: Copernicus hyperspectral imaging mission for the environment:
Mission requirements document version 2.1, European Space Agency, Frascati, Italy, 2019.​​​​​​​</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Richardson, M. T., Thompson, D. R., Kurowski, M. J., and Lebsock, M. D.: Boundary layer water vapour statistics from high-spatial-resolution spaceborne imaging spectroscopy, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5555–5576, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5555-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-14-5555-2021</ext-link>, 2021a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Richardson, M. T., Thompson, D. R., Kurowski, M. J., and Lebsock, M. D.: Supporting data for boundary layer water vapour statistics from high-spatial-resolution spaceborne imaging spectroscopy, Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5717263" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.5717263</ext-link>, 2021b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schemann, V., Stevens, B., Grützun, V., and Quaas, J.: Scale Dependency
of Total Water Variance and Its Implicatio<?pagebreak page129?>n for Cloud Parameterizations, J.
Atmos. Sci., 70, 3615–3630, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-09.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-13-09.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Selz, T., Fischer, L., and Craig, G. C.: Structure Function Analysis of Water
Vapor Simulated with a Convection-Permitting Model and Comparison to
Airborne Lidar Observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 1201–1210,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0160.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-16-0160.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Siebesma, A. P., Bretherton, C. S., Brown, A., Chlond, A., Cuxart, J.,
Duynkerke, P. G., Jiang, H., Khairoutdinov, M., Lewellen, D., Moeng, C.-H.,
Sanchez, E., Stevens, B., and Stevens, D. E.: A Large Eddy Simulation
Intercomparison Study of Shallow Cumulus Convection, J. Atmos. Sci., 60,
1201–1219, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)60&lt;1201:ALESIS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2003)60&lt;1201:ALESIS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Skamarock, W. C., Park, S.-H., Klemp, J. B., and Snyder, C.: Atmospheric
Kinetic Energy Spectra from Global High-Resolution Nonhydrostatic
Simulations, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4369–4381,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0114.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-14-0114.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sommeria, G. and Deardorff, J. W.: Subgrid-Scale Condensation in Models of
Nonprecipitating Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 344–355,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;0344:SSCIMO&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;0344:SSCIMO&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Szczodrak, M., Austin, P. H., and Krummel, P. B.: Variability of Optical
Depth and Effective Radius in Marine Stratocumulus Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci.,
58, 2912–2926, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;2912:VOODAE&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;2912:VOODAE&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thompson, D. R., Natraj, V., Green, R. O., Helmlinger, M. C., Gao, B.-C., and
Eastwood, M. L.: Optimal estimation for imaging spectrometer atmospheric
correction, Remote Sens. Environ., 216, 355–373,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.07.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2018.07.003</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thompson, D. R., Cawse-Nicholson, K., Erickson, Z., Fichot, C. G.,
Frankenberg, C., Gao, B.-C., Gierach, M. M., Green, R. O., Jensen, D.,
Natraj, V., and Thompson, A.: A unified approach to estimate land and water
reflectances with uncertainties for coastal imaging spectroscopy, Remote
Sens. Environ., 231, 111198, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.017</ext-link>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thompson, D. R., Kahn, B. H., Brodrick, P. G., Lebsock, M. D., Richardson, M., and Green, R. O.: Spectroscopic imaging of sub-kilometer spatial structure in lower-tropospheric water vapor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 2827–2840, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2827-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-14-2827-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ungermann, J., Blank, J., Dick, M., Ebersoldt, A., Friedl-Vallon, F., Giez, A., Guggenmoser, T., Höpfner, M., Jurkat, T., Kaufmann, M., Kaufmann, S., Kleinert, A., Krämer, M., Latzko, T., Oelhaf, H., Olchewski, F., Preusse, P., Rolf, C., Schillings, J., Suminska-Ebersoldt, O., Tan, V., Thomas, N., Voigt, C., Zahn, A., Zöger, M., and Riese, M.: Level 2 processing for the imaging Fourier transform spectrometer GLORIA: derivation and validation of temperature and trace gas volume mixing ratios from calibrated dynamics mode spectra, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 2473–2489, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2473-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-2473-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>vanZanten, M. C., Stevens, B., Nuijens, L., Siebesma, A. P., Ackerman, A.
S., Burnet, F., Cheng, A., Couvreux, F., Jiang, H., Khairoutdinov, M.,
Kogan, Y., Lewellen, D. C., Mechem, D., Nakamura, K., Noda, A., Shipway, B.
J., Slawinska, J., Wang, S., and Wyszogrodzki, A.: Controls on precipitation
and cloudiness in simulations of trade-wind cumulus as observed during RICO,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 3, M06001, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000056" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011MS000056</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Várnai, T. and Marshak, A.: MODIS observations of enhanced clear sky
reflectance near clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L06807,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL037089" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL037089</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wroblewski, D. E., Coté, O. R., Hacker, J. M., and Dobosy, R. J.:
Velocity and Temperature Structure Functions in the Upper Troposphere and
Lower Stratosphere from High-Resolution Aircraft Measurements, J. Atmos.
Sci., 67, 1157–1170, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3108.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JAS3108.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>New sampling strategy mitigates a solar-geometry-induced bias in sub-kilometre vapour scaling statistics derived from imaging spectroscopy</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Arakawa, A., Jung, J.-H., and Wu, C.-M.: Toward unification of the multiscale modeling of the atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3731–3742, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3731-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3731-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bacmeister, J. T., Eckermann, S. D., Newman, P. A., Lait, L., Chan, K. R.,
Loewenstein, M., Proffitt, M. H., and Gary, B. L.: Stratospheric horizontal
wavenumber spectra of winds, potential temperature, and atmospheric tracers
observed by high-altitude aircraft, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 101,
9441–9470, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD03835" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD03835</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bedka, K. M., Nehrir, A. R., Kavaya, M., Barton-Grimley, R., Beaubien, M., Carroll, B., Collins, J., Cooney, J., Emmitt, G. D., Greco, S., Kooi, S., Lee, T., Liu, Z., Rodier, S., and Skofronick-Jackson, G.: Airborne lidar observations of wind, water vapor, and aerosol profiles during the NASA Aeolus calibration and validation (Cal/Val) test flight campaign, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 4305–4334, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4305-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4305-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Berk, A., Conforti, P., Kennett, R., Perkins, T., Hawes, F., and van den
Bosch, J.: MODTRAN6: a major upgrade of the MODTRAN radiative transfer code,
in: Proceedings Volume 9088, Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral,
Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery XX, edited by: Velez-Reyes, M. and Kruse, F. A., SPIE, Baltimore, MD, USA, 90880H, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Berk, A., Conforti, P., and Hawes, F.: An accelerated line-by-line option for
MODTRAN combining on-the-fly generation of line center absorption within 0.1&thinsp;cm<sup>−1</sup>​​​​​​​ bins and pre-computed line tails, in: Proceedings Volume 9472,
Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and
Ultraspectral Imagery XXI, edited by: Velez-Reyes, M. and Kruse, F. A.,  SPIE, Baltimore, MD, USA, 947217, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Boffetta, G., De Lillo, F., Mazzino, A., and Musacchio, S.: Bolgiano scale in
confined Rayleigh–Taylor turbulence, J. Fluid Mech., 690, 426–440,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2011.446" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2011.446</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bolgiano, R.: Turbulent spectra in a stably stratified atmosphere, J.
Geophys. Res., 64, 2226–2229, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ064i012p02226" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ064i012p02226</a>, 1959.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bradley, C. L., Thingvold, E., Moore, L. B., Haag, J. M., Raouf, N. A.,
Mouroulis, P., and Green, R. O.: Optical design of the Earth Surface Mineral
Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) imaging spectrometer, in: Imaging
Spectrometry XXIV: Applications, Sensors, and Processing, edited by:
Mouroulis, P. and Ientilucci, E. J.,  SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, online only, p. 1, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, A. R., Cederwall, R. T., Chlond, A., Duynkerke, P. G., Golaz, J.-C.,
Khairoutdinov, M., Lewellen, D. C., Lock, A. P., MacVean, M. K., Moeng,
C.-H., Neggers, R. A. J., Siebesma, A. P., and Stevens, B.: Large-eddy
simulation of the diurnal cycle of shallow cumulus convection over land, Q.
J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 128, 1075–1093, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1256/003590002320373210" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1256/003590002320373210</a>,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Candela, L., Formaro, R., Guarini, R., Loizzo, R., Longo, F., and Varacalli,
G.: The PRISMA mission, in: 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote
Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), IEEE, Beijing, China, 10–15 July 2016,
253–256, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Carbajal Henken, C. K., Diedrich, H., Preusker, R., and Fischer, J.: MERIS
full-resolution total column water vapor: Observing horizontal convective
rolls, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 10074–10081, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066650" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066650</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Cho, J. Y. N., Zhu, Y., Newell, R. E., Anderson, B. E., Barrick, J. D.,
Gregory, G. L., Sachse, G. W., Carroll, M. A., and Albercook, G. M.:
Horizontal wavenumber spectra of winds, temperature, and trace gases during
the Pacific Exploratory Missions: 1. Climatology, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
104, 5697–5716, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD01825" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD01825</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Diedrich, H., Preusker, R., Lindstrot, R., and Fischer, J.: Retrieval of daytime total columnar water vapour from MODIS measurements over land surfaces, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 823–836, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-823-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-823-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Diner, D. J., Boland, S. W., Brauer, M., Bruegge, C., Burke, K. A., Chipman,
R., Di Girolamo, L., Garay, M. J., Hasheminassab, S., and Hyer, E.: Advances
in multiangle satellite remote sensing of speciated airborne particulate
matter and association with adverse health effects: from MISR to MAIA, J.
Appl. Remote Sens., 16,  042603,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.12.042603" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.12.042603</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Dorrestijn, J., Kahn, B. H., Teixeira, J., and Irion, F. W.: Instantaneous variance scaling of AIRS thermodynamic profiles using a circular area Monte Carlo approach, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 2717–2733, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2717-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2717-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Drusch, M., Del Bello, U., Carlier, S., Colin, O., Fernandez, V., Gascon,
F., Hoersch, B., Isola, C., Laberinti, P., Martimort, P., Meygret, A.,
Spoto, F., Sy, O., Marchese, F., and Bargellini, P.: Sentinel-2: ESA's
Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services, Remote Sens.
Environ., 120, 25–36, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Emde, C., Buras, R., and Mayer, B.: ALIS: An efficient method to compute high
spectral resolution polarized solar radiances using the Monte Carlo
approach, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 112, 1622–1631,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.03.018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.03.018</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Evans, K. F.: The Spherical Harmonics Discrete Ordinate Method for
Three-Dimensional Atmospheric Radiative Transfer, J. Atmos. Sci., 55,
429–446, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;0429:TSHDOM&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;0429:TSHDOM&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Fischer, L., Kiemle, C., and Craig, G. C.: Height-resolved variability of
midlatitude tropospheric water vapor measured by an airborne lidar, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 39, L06803, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050621" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050621</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Fischer, L., Craig, G. C., and Kiemle, C.: Horizontal structure function and
vertical correlation analysis of mesoscale water vapor variability observed
by airborne lidar, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 7579–7590,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50588" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50588</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Gage, K. S. and Nastrom, G. D.: On the spectrum of atmospheric velocity
fluctuations seen by MST/ST radar and their interpretation, Radio Sci.,
20, 1339–1347, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/RS020i006p01339" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/RS020i006p01339</a>, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Garay, M. J., Davis, A. B., and Diner, D. J.: Tomographic reconstruction of
an aerosol plume using passive multiangle observations from the MISR
satellite instrument, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,  12590–12596, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071479" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071479</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs,
L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan,
K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A.,
da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D.,
Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M.,
Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective
Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate,
30, 5419–5454, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Golaz, J.-C., Larson, V. E., and Cotton, W. R.: A PDF-Based Model for
Boundary Layer Clouds. Part I: Method and Model Description, J. Atmos. Sci.,
59, 3540–3551, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;3540:APBMFB&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;3540:APBMFB&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Green, R. O. and Thompson, D. R.: An Earth Science Imaging Spectroscopy
Mission: The Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT), in:
IGARSS 2020 – 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium, online only,   26 September–2 October 2020,
IEEE, 6262–6265, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Gristey, J. J., Feingold, G., Glenn, I. B., Schmidt, K. S., and Chen, H.:
Surface Solar Irradiance in Continental Shallow Cumulus Fields: Observations
and Large-Eddy Simulation, J. Atmos. Sci., 77, 1065–1080,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0261.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0261.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Grossi, M., Valks, P., Loyola, D., Aberle, B., Slijkhuis, S., Wagner, T., Beirle, S., and Lang, R.: Total column water vapour measurements from GOME-2 MetOp-A and MetOp-B, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1111–1133, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1111-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1111-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Kahn, B. H. and Teixeira, J.: A Global Climatology of Temperature and Water
Vapor Variance Scaling from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, J. Climate,
22, 5558–5576, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2934.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2934.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Kahn, B. H., Teixeira, J., Fetzer, E. J., Gettelman, A., Hristova-Veleva, S.
M., Huang, X., Kochanski, A. K., Köhler, M., Krueger, S. K., Wood, R., and Zhao, M.: Temperature and Water Vapor Variance Scaling in Global Models:
Comparisons to Satellite and Aircraft Data, J. Atmos. Sci., 68,
2156–2168, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JAS3737.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JAS3737.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Krutz, D., Müller, R., Knodt, U., Günther, B., Walter, I.,
Sebastian, I., Säuberlich, T., Reulke, R., Carmona, E., Eckardt, A.,
Venus, H., Fischer, C., Zender, B., Arloth, S., Lieder, M., Neidhardt, M.,
Grote, U., Schrandt, F., Gelmi, S., and Wojtkowiak, A.: The Instrument Design
of the DLR Earth Sensing Imaging Spectrometer (DESIS), Sensors, 19, 1622,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071622" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071622</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Kunnen, R. P. J., Clercx, H. J. H., Geurts, B. J., van Bokhoven, L. J. A.,
Akkermans, R. A. D., and Verzicco, R.: Numerical and experimental
investigation of structure-function scaling in turbulent Rayleigh-Bénard
convection, Phys. Rev. E, 77, 016302, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.77.016302" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.77.016302</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Kurowski, M. J., Grabowski, W. W., and Smolarkiewicz, P. K.: Anelastic and
Compressible Simulation of Moist Dynamics at Planetary Scales, J. Atmos.
Sci., 72, 3975–3995, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0107.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0107.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Kurowski, M. J., Grabowski, W. W., Suselj, K., and Teixeira, J.: The Strong
Impact of Weak Horizontal Convergence on Continental Shallow Convection, J.
Atmos. Sci., 77, 3119–3137, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0351.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0351.1</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D., and Tuck, A. F.: Fractal aircraft trajectories
and nonclassical turbulent exponents, Phys. Rev. E, 70, 036306,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.036306" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.036306</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Lovejoy, S., Tuck, A. F., Hovde, S. J., and Schertzer, D.: Is isotropic
turbulence relevant in the atmosphere?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34,  L15802,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029359" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029359</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Massie, S. T., Cronk, H., Merrelli, A., O'Dell, C., Schmidt, K. S., Chen, H., and Baker, D.: Analysis of 3D cloud effects in OCO-2 XCO2 retrievals, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 1475–1499, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1475-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1475-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Matheou, G. and Chung, D.: Large-Eddy Simulation of Stratified Turbulence.
Part II: Application of the Stretched-Vortex Model to the Atmospheric
Boundary Layer, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4439–4460,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0306.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0306.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Nelson, R. R., Crisp, D., Ott, L. E., and O'Dell, C. W.: High-accuracy
measurements of total column water vapor from the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory-2, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12261–12269,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071200" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071200</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Noël, S., Buchwitz, M., and Burrows, J. P.: First retrieval of global water vapour column amounts from SCIAMACHY measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 111–125, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-111-2004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-111-2004</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Obukhov, A. M.: On the influence of buoyancy forces on the structure of the
temperature field in a turbulent flow, Dokl. Acad. Nauk. SSST., 125,   p. 1246, 1959.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Perraud, E., Couvreux, F., Malardel, S., Lac, C., Masson, V., and Thouron,
O.: Evaluation of Statistical Distributions for the Parametrization of
Subgrid Boundary-Layer Clouds, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 140, 263–294,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-011-9607-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-011-9607-3</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Pinel, J., Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D., and Tuck, A. F.: Joint
horizontal-vertical anisotropic scaling, isobaric and isoheight wind
statistics from aircraft data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39,  L11803,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051689" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051689</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Pressel, K. G. and Collins, W. D.: First-Order Structure Function Analysis
of Statistical Scale Invariance in the AIRS-Observed Water Vapor Field, J.
Climate, 25, 5538–5555, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00374.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00374.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Preusker, R., Carbajal Henken, C., and Fischer, J.: Retrieval of Daytime
Total Column Water Vapour from OLCI Measurements over Land Surfaces, Remote
Sens., 13, 932, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050932" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050932</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Prusa, J. M., Smolarkiewicz, P. K., and Wyszogrodzki, A. A.: EULAG, a
computational model for multiscale flows, Comput. Fluids, 37, 1193–1207,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2007.12.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2007.12.001</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Rast, M., Ananasso, C., Bach, H., Ben-Dor, E., Chabrillat, S., Colombo, R.,
Del Bello, U., Feret, J., Giardino, C., Green, R., Guanter, L., Marsh, S.,
Nieke, J., CCH, O., Rum, G., Schaepman, M., Schlerf, M., Skidmore, A., and
Strobl, P.: Copernicus hyperspectral imaging mission for the environment:
Mission requirements document version 2.1, European Space Agency, Frascati, Italy, 2019.​​​​​​​
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Richardson, M. T., Thompson, D. R., Kurowski, M. J., and Lebsock, M. D.: Boundary layer water vapour statistics from high-spatial-resolution spaceborne imaging spectroscopy, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5555–5576, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5555-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5555-2021</a>, 2021a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Richardson, M. T., Thompson, D. R., Kurowski, M. J., and Lebsock, M. D.: Supporting data for boundary layer water vapour statistics from high-spatial-resolution spaceborne imaging spectroscopy, Zenodo [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5717263" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5717263</a>, 2021b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Schemann, V., Stevens, B., Grützun, V., and Quaas, J.: Scale Dependency
of Total Water Variance and Its Implication for Cloud Parameterizations, J.
Atmos. Sci., 70, 3615–3630, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-09.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-09.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Selz, T., Fischer, L., and Craig, G. C.: Structure Function Analysis of Water
Vapor Simulated with a Convection-Permitting Model and Comparison to
Airborne Lidar Observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 1201–1210,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0160.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0160.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Siebesma, A. P., Bretherton, C. S., Brown, A., Chlond, A., Cuxart, J.,
Duynkerke, P. G., Jiang, H., Khairoutdinov, M., Lewellen, D., Moeng, C.-H.,
Sanchez, E., Stevens, B., and Stevens, D. E.: A Large Eddy Simulation
Intercomparison Study of Shallow Cumulus Convection, J. Atmos. Sci., 60,
1201–1219, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)60&lt;1201:ALESIS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)60&lt;1201:ALESIS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Skamarock, W. C., Park, S.-H., Klemp, J. B., and Snyder, C.: Atmospheric
Kinetic Energy Spectra from Global High-Resolution Nonhydrostatic
Simulations, J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 4369–4381,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0114.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0114.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Sommeria, G. and Deardorff, J. W.: Subgrid-Scale Condensation in Models of
Nonprecipitating Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 344–355,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;0344:SSCIMO&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;0344:SSCIMO&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Szczodrak, M., Austin, P. H., and Krummel, P. B.: Variability of Optical
Depth and Effective Radius in Marine Stratocumulus Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci.,
58, 2912–2926, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;2912:VOODAE&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;2912:VOODAE&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Thompson, D. R., Natraj, V., Green, R. O., Helmlinger, M. C., Gao, B.-C., and
Eastwood, M. L.: Optimal estimation for imaging spectrometer atmospheric
correction, Remote Sens. Environ., 216, 355–373,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.07.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.07.003</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Thompson, D. R., Cawse-Nicholson, K., Erickson, Z., Fichot, C. G.,
Frankenberg, C., Gao, B.-C., Gierach, M. M., Green, R. O., Jensen, D.,
Natraj, V., and Thompson, A.: A unified approach to estimate land and water
reflectances with uncertainties for coastal imaging spectroscopy, Remote
Sens. Environ., 231, 111198, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.017</a>, 2019.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Thompson, D. R., Kahn, B. H., Brodrick, P. G., Lebsock, M. D., Richardson, M., and Green, R. O.: Spectroscopic imaging of sub-kilometer spatial structure in lower-tropospheric water vapor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 2827–2840, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2827-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-2827-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Ungermann, J., Blank, J., Dick, M., Ebersoldt, A., Friedl-Vallon, F., Giez, A., Guggenmoser, T., Höpfner, M., Jurkat, T., Kaufmann, M., Kaufmann, S., Kleinert, A., Krämer, M., Latzko, T., Oelhaf, H., Olchewski, F., Preusse, P., Rolf, C., Schillings, J., Suminska-Ebersoldt, O., Tan, V., Thomas, N., Voigt, C., Zahn, A., Zöger, M., and Riese, M.: Level 2 processing for the imaging Fourier transform spectrometer GLORIA: derivation and validation of temperature and trace gas volume mixing ratios from calibrated dynamics mode spectra, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 2473–2489, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2473-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2473-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
vanZanten, M. C., Stevens, B., Nuijens, L., Siebesma, A. P., Ackerman, A.
S., Burnet, F., Cheng, A., Couvreux, F., Jiang, H., Khairoutdinov, M.,
Kogan, Y., Lewellen, D. C., Mechem, D., Nakamura, K., Noda, A., Shipway, B.
J., Slawinska, J., Wang, S., and Wyszogrodzki, A.: Controls on precipitation
and cloudiness in simulations of trade-wind cumulus as observed during RICO,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 3, M06001, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000056" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000056</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Várnai, T. and Marshak, A.: MODIS observations of enhanced clear sky
reflectance near clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L06807,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL037089" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL037089</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Wroblewski, D. E., Coté, O. R., Hacker, J. M., and Dobosy, R. J.:
Velocity and Temperature Structure Functions in the Upper Troposphere and
Lower Stratosphere from High-Resolution Aircraft Measurements, J. Atmos.
Sci., 67, 1157–1170, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3108.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3108.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
