the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Introduction to EarthCARE synthetic data using a global storm-resolving simulation
Woosub Roh
Masaki Satoh
Tempei Hashino
Shuhei Matsugishi
Tomoe Nasuno
Takuji Kubota
Abstract. Pre-launch simulated data to be obtained from new sensors on a satellite is useful to develop retrieval algorithms and aid the rapid release of retrieval products after launch. Here we introduce Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agencies (JAXA) EarthCARE synthetic data based on simulations using a 3.5 km horizontal-mesh global storm-resolving model. Global aerosol transport simulation results are added for aerosol retrieval developers. Synthetic data were produced for four types of EarthCARE sensor: a 94 GHz cloud-profiling radar (CPR), a 355 nm atmospheric lidar (ATLID), a seven-channel multispectral imager (MSI), and a broadband radiometer (BBR). JAXA EarthCARE synthetic data include a standard product with data for two orbits and a research product with shorter frames and more detailed instrument settings. In the research products, random errors in the CPR are considered based on the observation window, and noise in ATLID signals are added using a noise simulator. We consider the spectral misalignment effect of the visible and near-infrared MSI channels based on response functions depending on the angle from nadir. We discuss plans for updating JAXA EarthCARE synthetic data using a large eddy simulation and implementation of a three-dimensional radiation model.
Woosub Roh et al.
Status: open (until 24 Mar 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-18', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2023
reply
Review of “Introduction to EarthCARE synthetic data using a global storm-resolving simulation” by Roh et al., submitted to Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT)
[Article#: amt-2023-18]
This report contains general, major, and specific comments from this reviewer on the manuscript.
A summary of the manuscript and general assessment:
Recommendation: Major revision
This manuscript introduces synthetic level-1 (L1) data products of the EarthCARE space-borne instruments, which will be launched in a few years. The purpose of producing the data is to support the development of retrieval algorithms to create higher-level data products before the satellite observations start and the operational product release. The synthetic data was produced by simulating the satellite orbits and observations in the geophysical fields of global storm-resolving model simulation with a 3.5 km horizontal mesh. In addition, the distribution of aerosol concentrations, which was not included in the storm-resolving model simulation, was considered by implementing additional global aerosol transport simulation with a coarser horizontal mesh. The data products include standard one with two full orbits around the earth and research-mode one with a part of the orbits adding corrections in the satellite simulations, which imitate the observation products by the actual instruments more realistically.
The scope of the manuscript is within the main subject areas of AMT, specifically theoretical calculations of measurement simulations with detailed error analysis, including instrument simulations.
I suggest a major revision. I have no deep expertise in the measurements using each remote-sensing instrument. However, from such a perspective, the current manuscript needs to be improved for better readability and clearer points. In addition, the present descriptions of the data availability could be better because this manuscript aims to introduce and advance the use of the EarthCARE synthetic data by other engineers and researchers for retrieval algorithm development. I list major problems in the following section.
Major comments:
- Abstract
The abstract needs to be rewritten to meet the objectives of the manuscript. At least, related to the data availability, the information about how to get the data sets is necessary for the abstract.
- Figure quality
The quality of the figures in the current discussion preprint could be better, although it might be degraded in the preprint production. Some specific comments for each figure can be found in the specific comments section.
- Difference between the standard and research products
The differences between the standard and research(-mode) products need to be presented in a more explicit format. Adding a table summarizing the differences may be helpful to show what is in or not in each product. The authors present some examples of the synthetic data products in the manuscript. However, which type of product is used to produce the examples and what are the differences in the case which type is used to make the examples need to be clarified.
- Mixture of the NICAM and NICAM-SPRINTARS simulations against L2 validation
Similar to algorithm development in other previous works, the original geophysical fields in the atmospheric simulations are expected to work as the true value in the validation of the result in applying the retrieval algorithm to the L1 data to get the L2 data. However, in this study, as long as I understand the process, the NICAM simulation with a 3.5 km horizontal mesh itself does not have aerosol direct effects on the atmospheric radiation in the simulated geophysical fields, and the NICAM-SPRINTARS simulation alternatively provides the spatial distribution of aerosol loading only in the process of creating the L1 data. This inconsistency could be an error in the L2 validation in the retrieval algorithms for the L1 data, specifically BBR. The NICAM simulation has no aerosol direct effects, so there is no true value.
- Data availability
The data sharing needs to be improved, given the scope and objectives of the manuscript. Although the traditional “upon request” may be acceptable in most research articles, this is not the case. AMT suggests the following data policy for handling data sets:
the deposit of research data (i.e. the material necessary to validate the research findings) that correspond to manuscripts, preprints, or journal articles in reliable FAIR-aligned data repositories that assign persistent identifiers (preferably digital object identifiers (DOIs)). Suitable repositories can be found at https://www.re3data.org/;
the proper citation of data sets in the text and the reference list including the persistent identifier. For data sets hosted on GitHub, authors are kindly asked to issue a DOI through Zenodo and include this DOI in the reference list;
the inclusion of a statement on how their underlying research data can be accessed. This must be placed in the section "Data availability" at the end of the manuscript before the acknowledgements. If the data are not publicly accessible, a detailed explanation of why this is the case is required (e.g. applicable laws, university and research institution policies, funder terms, privacy, intellectual property and licensing agreements, and the ethical context of the research);
the provision of unrestricted access to all data and materials underlying reported findings for which ethical or legal constraints do not apply.
The authors should follow the guidelines carefully. In addition, detailed information about the data sets, such as data size, data format, etc., should be included in the section or other parts of the manuscript.
Specific comments:
Line 19: “discuss” should be “introduce”.
Line 71: I need clarification on the relationship between the NICAM simulation (Line 64) and the NICAM-SPRINTERS simulation. Was the NICAM-SPRINTERS simulation run separately from the NICAM simulation? The aerosol distribution simulated in the NICAM-SPRINTERS simulation was used for the JAXA L1 data only, and it was not used in the NICAM simulation with ~3.5 km grid spacing for calculating the atmospheric radiation (aerosol direct effects) and the aerosol-cloud interaction. Correct?
Line 75: Related to the comment above, if calculating aerosol particle radiative properties needs information on the ambient atmosphere, such as relative humidity, which simulation provides the information?
Figure 1: Is the color transition of the line consistent with the color bar on the right side of the figure? Purple is not included in the color bar.
Figure 2: Does the 3.5 km NICAM simulation also provide terrain heights and land/ocean/ice surface states, or is this information from other data sources?
Figure 3: This figure quality is very poor. It should have a higher dpi to be read. I cannot see which side of the color bars is negative. And which is the upward or downward direction positive vertically?
Figure 7: The figure quality is very poor again.
Line 229 and Figure 10: Which is the base? I mean, which is subtracted from the other?
Line 279: What this section does is not discussion. It should be renamed “future plans”, “future improvement”, or something.
Grammatical problems:
Line 34: Remove “global”.
Line 178: “The attenuation of water clouds” => “The attenuation by water clouds”
Line 227: “1.67” => “1.65”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-18-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2023-18', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Mar 2023
reply
=============================
General Comments
=============================I recommend that the paper be accepted subject to minor revisions, mainly editorial in nature.
As far as the rational for presenting this work goes, I would suggest
that the authors also mention that the work presented here also can
aid in engaging and educating the wider atmospheric community
(e.g. the modeling community) with respect to the expected utility of
the observations and their efficient usage.
The quality of all of the figures need to be improved ! They do not
appear to be the required 300dpi resolution. In addition, the size of
the font used for the axis labels etc.. is too small.
================================
Specific Comments
=========================================
Abstract
========Line 10: "Pre-launch simulated satellite data are useful to develop
retrieval algorithms and to facilitate the rapid release of retrieval
products after launch"Line 11: "Here we introduce the Japanese..."
Line 13: "...data were produced corresponding to the four EarthCARE
instruments sensors, namely a 94GHz....."Line 19: "We discuss plans for updating the JAXA using large eddy simulation model data and the implementation of a ....."
=============
Introduction
=============Line 28: "expected to provide synergistic retrieval products..."
Line 31: "using a Global Storm Resolving Model (GSRM..."
Line 35: "One of the merits of GSRMs is that they do not....in contrast of GCMs.
Line 36: "The Nonhydrostatic Icosahedral Atmospheric mode (NICAM...)
is one of the pioneering GCSRMs and has been evaluated and ....."Line 45: Please explain more clearly what the observation window
means. I believe you are referring to the range interval covered by
the CPR (which is determined by the PRF). This may not be evident to
many potential readers of this paper.Line 51: Replace "GSRM" by "NICAM." (you are referring to a specific
GCSRM here).Line 55: "Here we introduce the JAXA simulated L1 EarthCARE data set."
Line 57: "..in Section 4, including the use of large-eddy simulation model data and the implementation of a three-dimension (3D) radiation model."
==========
Section 2
==========Line 61: "The JAXA L1 simulation data are based on..."
Line 62: NICAM has already been defined you do not need to do it
again. Also, the sentence is awkward, I suggest something like: "We used
NICAM data to drive the instrument simulations. NICAM was configured
with a horizontal resolution of about 3.5 km...."Line 78: "The lines indicate the expected EarthCARE orbits
corresponding to the simulations presented in this paper."Line 107: Replace last sentence by "Standard product L1 simulated data
were generated for two EarthCARE orbits."Section 3
===========Line 115: The last sentence is unclear. Can the authors clarify what they mean here ?
Line 118: "The CPR..."
Line 124: The last statement is unclear. A total extinction
coefficient was added to what ? The simulated data product ? Or,
perhaps, the effects of the extinction were added to the simulated
reflectivity ?Line 134: Can you (very) briefly explain why the EarthCARE CPR is
expected to have less surface clutter than the CloudSAT CPR ?Line 156: Please make it clear what the "observation window" is. See
also my earlier comment on this issue.Line 158: "minimum-maximum Doppler velocity" ? Are you referring to
the "Doppler folding velocity" (also know as the "unambiguous
velocity")) ? If so, please use the correct term and add a basic radar
reference.Line 161: The last sentence is unclear. Either explain the point you
are making better of just remove the sentence.
Line 176: The last sentence is confusing. Please explain. Do you
provide CALIPSO 532nm simulated signals as well as the 355 ATLID HSRL
signals ? Is the depolarization ratio assumed to be the same fro both wavelengths ?Line 187: Delete "possible" there will certainly be noise in the real data !
Line 194: "could" ==> "can"
Line 201: "The MSI..."
Line 207: Six streams seems low for radiance simulations. Please
comment on why this was done and the expected accuracy of the results.Line 220: "The MSI..."
Line 224--229: Did you also consider the effect of the "smile" on the surface reflectance properties ?
Line 253: "The BBR has two channels; covering 0.25 to 50 um for ......and another covering from 0.25 to
4 um ....."Also. Replace "observing" by "estimating". Fluxes can not be physically
observed. Only radiances can be observed and they are then used to
estimate the TOA fluxes.Also, please make it clear that radiances are not calculated.
Section 4
=========Line 280: "We have introduced the JAXA simulated EarthCARE L1 data that are ....."
Lines 283--287. This is very unclear. Please re-write. Also,
appropriate references should be added here. Perhaps Schutgens 2008 and Kollios 2018 ?Line 313: Delete ", which has limitation in representing scattering
properties in 3D cloud fields". It is not the scattering properties
you likely mean here, but rather the 3D radiation field.
Summary
=======Line 328: "The EarthCARE CPR...."
Line 342: "The BBR..."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-18-RC2
Woosub Roh et al.
Woosub Roh et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 217 | 47 | 7 | 271 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 217
- PDF: 47
- XML: 7
- Total: 271
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1