Articles | Volume 15, issue 8
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantification and mitigation of the instrument effects and uncertainties of the airborne limb imaging FTIR GLORIA
- Final revised paper (published on 25 Apr 2022)
- Preprint (discussion started on 19 Oct 2021)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-293', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Nov 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joern Ungermann, 27 Jan 2022
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-293', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Dec 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joern Ungermann, 27 Jan 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Joern Ungermann on behalf of the Authors (27 Jan 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (01 Feb 2022) by Helen Worden
This paper presents an updated instrument calibration and characterization approach for the GLORIA imaging FTS instrument. The paper builds on earlier work that has been presented in several other papers, namely, Kleinert et al (2014) and Guggenmoser et al., (2015). The paper provides a detailed description of the updated techniques that were developed to characterize and mitigate instrument artefacts using numerous inflight measurements. The improved approach is then used to characterize error sources and examine the impact of these errors on the level 2 temperature and ozone products.
The authors point out that the current paper “collects all relevant processing information for GLORIA in one place, thus being a reference for further geophysical interpretation of the data or derivative satellite-borne instruments”. Indeed, the authors provide a good review of the overall measurement technique, the general calibration approach, and the level 0 to level 2 processing steps. This end-to-end examination of the updated calibration approach, error estimates and analysis of the impact on level 2 products will be a good addition to the literature. In many ways this paper can be viewed as a companion paper to the earlier works.
The only general comment that I have is that it isn’t clear that there has been an improvement to the level 2 products. Since only ozone and temperature are examined, its also not clear what the broader impact is on other GLORIA products (H2O, HNO3 etc.). However, the paper does provide an excellent basis to estimate and understand the impact of the instrument artefacts in a manner that likely wasn’t possible for the earlier works. My only suggestion would be to explicitly identify any improvement (or not) to the level 2 products if possible.
All other questions, comments and suggestions are minor and are listed below.
Specific Questions & Comments
Line 65-60: Sentence is repeated.
Line 207: The wording isn’t clear here. Suggestion to replace “The subtraction…..” with “The removal….” ?
Line 236: “and are thus behave” should be “and thus behave”?
Line 655: do you mean CO2 emission lines?
Line 762: I assume the term “sled position” corresponds to the interferometer mirror position. This should be defined or reworded to be clearer.
Eq. B5, Line 795: Does the “x” in Eq. B5 refer to the non-linearity scaling factor? If so, it could get confused with the variable x in Eq. B1.
Figure A5(a): What wavenumber does this figure correspond to?