[A & I plus PDF only]
COPYRIGHT: © Author(s) 2013. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Copyright Copernicus GmbH 2013
Abstract
Aerosol classification products from the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) airborne High Spectral Resolution Lidar (HSRL-1) on the NASA B200 aircraft are compared with coincident V3.01 aerosol classification products from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) instrument on the CALIPSO satellite. For CALIOP, aerosol classification is a key input to the aerosol retrieval, and must be inferred using aerosol loading-dependent observations and location information. In contrast, HSRL-1 makes direct measurements of aerosol intensive properties, including the lidar ratio, that provide information on aerosol type. In this study, comparisons are made for 109 underflights of the CALIOP orbit track. We find that 62% of the CALIOP marine layers and 54% of the polluted continental layers agree with HSRL-1 classification results. In addition, 80% of the CALIOP desert dust layers are classified as either dust or dusty mix byHSRL-1. However, agreement is less for CALIOP smoke (13%) and polluted dust (35%) layers. Specific case studies are examined, giving insight into the performance of the CALIOP aerosol type algorithm. In particular, we find that the CALIOP polluted dust type is overused due to an attenuation-related depolarization bias. Furthermore, the polluted dust type frequently includes mixtures of dust plus marine aerosol. Finally, we find that CALIOP's identification of internal boundaries between different aerosol types in contact with each other frequently do not reflect the actual transitions between aerosol types accurately. Based on these findings, we give recommendations which may help to improve the CALIOP aerosol type algorithms.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer