Search

The University of Valladolid (UVa, Spain) manages since 2006 a calibration center of the AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET). The CÆLIS software tool, developed by UVa, was created to manage the data generated by the AERONET photometers, for calibration, quality control and data processing purposes. This paper exploits the potential of this tool in order to obtain products like the aerosol optical depth (AOD) and Angstrom exponent (AE), which are of high interest for atmospheric and climate studies, as well as to enhance the quality control of the instruments and data managed by CÆLIS. The AOD and cloud screening algorithms implemented in CÆLIS, both based on AERONET version 3, are described in detail. The obtained products are compared with the AERONET database. In general, the differences in daytime AOD between CÆLIS and AERONET are far below the expected uncertainty of the instrument, ranging the mean differences between −1.3×10−4 at 870 nm and 6.2×10−4 at 380 nm. The standard deviations of the differences range from 2.8×10−4 at 675 nm to 8.1×10−4 at 340 nm. The AOD and AE at night-time calculated by CÆLIS from Moon observations are also presented, showing good continuity between day and night-time for different locations, aerosol loads and moon phase angles. Regarding cloud screening, around 99.9 % of the observations classified as cloud-free by CÆLIS are also assumed cloud-free by AERONET; this percentage is similar for the cases considered as cloud-contaminated by both databases. The obtained results point out the capability of CÆLIS as processing system. The AOD algorithm provides the opportunity to use this tool with other instrument types and to retrieve other aerosol products in the future.

The first multi-instrument nocturnal aerosol optical depth (AOD) intercomparison campaign was held at the high-mountain Izaña Observatory (Tenerife, Spain) in June 2017, involving 2-min synchronous measurements from two different types of lunar photometers (Cimel CE318-T and Moon Precision Filter Radiometer, LunarPFR) and one stellar photometer. The Robotic Lunar Observatory (ROLO) model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was compared with the open-access ROLO Implementation for Moon photometry Observation (RIMO) model. Results showed rather small differences at Izaña over a 2-month time period covering June and July, 2017 (±0.01 in terms of AOD calculated by means of a day/night/day coherence test analysis and ± 2% in terms of lunar irradiance). The RIMO model has been used in this field campaign to retrieve AOD from lunar photometric measurements. No evidence of significant differences with the Moon's phase angle was found when comparing raw signals of the six Cimel photometers involved in this field campaign. The raw signal comparison of the participating lunar photometers (Cimel and LunarPFR) performed at coincident wavelengths showed consistent measurements and AOD differences within their combined uncertainties at 870 nm and 675 nm. Slightly larger AOD deviations were observed at 500 nm, pointing to some unexpected instrumental variations during the measurement period. Lunar irradiances retrieved using RIMO for phase angles varying between 0° and 75° (full Moon to near quarter Moon) were compared to the irradiance variations retrieved by Cimel and LunarPFR photometers. Our results showed a relative agreement within ± 3.5% between the RIMO model and the photometer-based lunar irradiances. The AOD retrieved by performing a Langley-plot calibration each night showed a remarkable agreement (better than 0.01) between the lunar photometers. However, when applying the Lunar-Langley calibration using RIMO, AOD differences of up to 0.015 (0.040 for 500 nm) were found, with differences increasing with the Moon's phase angle. These differences are thought to be partly due to the uncertainties in the irradiance models, as well as instrumental deficiencies yet to be fully understood. High AOD variability in stellar measurements was detected during the campaign. Nevertheless, the observed AOD differences in the Cimel/stellar comparison were within the expected combined uncertainties of these two photometric techniques. Our results indicate that lunar photometry is a more reliable technique, especially for low aerosol loading conditions. The uncertainty analysis performed in this paper shows that the combined standard AOD uncertainty in lunar photometry is dependent on the calibration technique (up to 0.014 for Langley-plot with illumination-based correction, 0.012–0.022 for Lunar-Langley calibration, and up to 0.1 for the Sun-Moon Gain Factor method). This analysis also corroborates that the uncertainty of the lunar irradiance model used for AOD calculation is within the 5–10% expected range. This campaign has allowed us to quantify the important technical difficulties that still exist when routinely monitoring aerosol optical properties at night-time. The small AOD differences observed between the three types of photometers involved in the campaign are only detectable under pristine sky conditions such as those found in this field campaign. Longer campaigns are necessary to understand the observed discrepancies between instruments as well as to provide more conclusive results about the uncertainty involved in the lunar irradiance models. This work has been developed within the framework of the activities of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observations (CIMO) Izaña Testbed for Aerosols and Water Vapour Remote Sensing Instruments. AERONET sun photometers at Izaña have been calibrated within the AERONET Europe TNA, supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 654109 (ACTRIS‒2). CE318-T linearity check has been performed as part of the ESA-funded project “Lunar spectral irradiance measurement and modelling for absolute calibration of EO optical sensors” under ESA contract number: 4000121576/17/NL/AF/hh. LunarPFR has been performing measurements since 2014 in Norway thanks to Svalbard Science Forum funded project, 2014–2016. The authors would like to thank AERONET team for their support and also to NASA’s Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility (NAIF) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to help the implementation of the “SPICE” ancillary information system used in this study. We also thank Izaña's ITs for their work to implement the RIMO model in the free-access server. Special thanks should be given to Tom Stone, who has kindly provided us with the USGS/ROLO irradiance values used in the model comparison analysis. This work has also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and from Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (IF) ACE-GFAT (grant agreement no. 659398). The authors are grateful to Spanish MINECO (CTM2015-66742-R) and Junta de Castilla y León (VA100P17).