the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Implementation and application of an improved phase spectrum determination scheme for Fourier Transform Spectrometry
Abstract. Correct determination of the phase spectrum is a highly relevant task in Fourier Transform Spectrometry for concluding which spectral distribution connects with the measured interferogram. We present implementation of an improved scheme for phase determination in the operational Collaborative Carbon Column Observing Network (COCCON) processor. We introduce a robust unwrapping scheme for retrieving a connected phase spectrum at intermediate spectral resolution, which uses all spectral positions carrying enough signal to allow a significant determination of the phase. In the second step, we perform a least squares fit of model parameters of a suited analytical phase spectrum model through all reliable phase values constructed in the first step. The model fit exploits the fact that we expect the phase to be spectrally smooth. Still, it can be refined to reflect specific characteristics inherent to the optical and electronic layout of the interferometer. The proposed approach avoids the problems of the classical phase reconstruction method, which enforce a spectrally smooth phase by directly limiting spectral resolution when calculating the complex phase. Thereby, the phase is created from a very low number of interferogram points around the centerburst of the interferogram, which results in a suboptimal noise propagation from the interferogram into the spectral domain. Moreover, the interpolation of the phase spectrum across spectral subsections with reduced spectral signal is not well behaved and results depend strongly on the numerical apodization function used for creating the low-resolution phase.
- Preprint
(793 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-140', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Oct 2024
The article “Implementation and application of an improved phase spectrum determination scheme for Fourier Transform Spectrometry” by Hase et. al. describes a more robust method for determining the phase spectrum of a Fourier transform spectrometer and applies the described method to a selection of instruments used for ground-based measurements of atmospheric trace gases.
This work has been carried out in the context of the European Space Agency’s Fiducial Reference Measurements for Greenhouse Gases (FRM4GHG) programme and so there is an expected focus on retrieval of greenhouse gases from absorption spectra. The presented results show that the changes in retrieved CO2 column using the new and traditional phase determination are very modest. However, the new and more rigorous method presented can provide insight into the instrumental features of the various spectrometers presented.
The manuscript is generally well written, especially the introduction section, and the content will form a beneficial addition to the field. I would recommend that it is published subject to the changes and clarifications outlined below.
Specific comments:
Given that this work was carried out as part of FRM4GHG, the discussion of the impact of the phase determination on retrieved gas column is very limited, with quantified results only presented for one instrument and one species. It would be good to include these results for all of the instruments investigated and multiple species or spectral windows. Even if all the differences are at or below the magnitude reported for the IRcube CO2 window, this is still a useful finding which should be noted.
In section 2 the instruments should be introduced in a more consistent way. For example, there is very little discussion of the location of any of the instruments until the Izaña IFS125HR is introduced, and a paragraph is used to describe the observatory before a second, shorter paragraph describes the instrument.
Furthermore, when describing the IRcube, it is noted that single or double-sided interferograms can be measured, but it is never made explicit which are used in this study.
A table in this section that summarises the important instrument characteristics would be very helpful to the reader.
When describing the algorithm for the new phase determination a discussion on the choice of the threshold value T would be useful. What constitutes significantly above the noise and artefact level, and what are the implications of setting this value too low?
Technical corrections:
L75. ILS should be more fully introduced
L176. The reference IFS125HR has not bee discussed prior to here. Is this the Izaña instrument?
L328. Include units after 2 ∙ 10−5
Figure5. It isn’t clear that there are two spectra plotted. Consider including a legend. The curve labelled residual isn’t really a residual in the normal sense but a difference, consider relabelling. Include a description of the curve colours in the caption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-140-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Frank Hase, 12 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-140', Geoff Toon, 30 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-140/amt-2024-140-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Frank Hase, 12 Dec 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
153 | 45 | 46 | 244 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 153
- PDF: 45
- XML: 46
- Total: 244
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1