TEMIS UV product validation using NILU-UV ground-based measurements in Thessaloniki, Greece

Zempila, Melina-Maria; van Geffen, Jos H. G. M.; Taylor, Michael; Fountoulakis, Ilias; Koukouli, Maria-Elissavet; van Weele, Michiel; van der A, Ronald J.; Bais, Alkiviadis; Meleti, Charikleia; Balis, Dimitrios

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7157-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7157-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7157-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 11

Research article

|

16 Jun 2017

Research article |

| 16 Jun 2017

TEMIS UV product validation using NILU-UV ground-based measurements in Thessaloniki, Greece

Melina-Maria Zempila, Jos H. G. M. van Geffen, Michael Taylor, Ilias Fountoulakis, Maria-Elissavet Koukouli, Michiel van Weele, Ronald J. van der A, Alkiviadis Bais, Charikleia Meleti, and Dimitrios Balis

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Jun 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Feb 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Interesting new Neural Network method to calibrate measurements of multi-filter instruments and to compare with satellies', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Mar 2017
- AC1: 'Reviewer #1: Response to comments', Melina Maria Zempila, 02 May 2017
RC2: 'Review of the study entitled ‘TEMIS UV product validation using NILU-UV ground-based measurements in Thessaloniki, Greece’ by Zempila et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Mar 2017
- AC2: 'Reviewer #2: Response to comments', Melina Maria Zempila, 02 May 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Melina Maria Zempila on behalf of the Authors (03 May 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (04 May 2017) by Stelios Kazadzis

The manuscript has been improved and the reviewer's comments has been anwsered.
There are some points that need still to be addressed :

- Page 14 line 6: why only the DNA comparison results show this seasonality ? Can that be related with their action spectrum and the fact that UVB is affecting more the DNA one ?

- figure 6 (down). I think the YY axis name have to be similar with the upper one.

- The seviri cloud products used have to be mentioned more. What exact cloud properties were used ?

- You have to check the references as there are some references in the manuscript that are not mentioned in the reference section (e.g. Bais et al., 2005, Kazadzis et al., 2009, ..)

- figure 6b. It would be more easy for the reader if you could separate black, blue and red symbols for each month in order to see more clear ther value and the bars. Practically ti can be done e.g. by ploting cie, vitD, DNA for March points to correspond to 2.9, 3 and 3.1 (on the XX axis) respectively.

figure 9: it is clear that winter months show an overestimation for cloudy conditions. Also, that cloudy conditons represent a skewed and not a normal distribution (Satelitte-NILU).
So mean values can not represent this in a correct way.

AOD section:

I do not think tha the statistics on the right side of figure 10 have much of a meaning as they are a subset of what it has been already shown before. Maybe there you can add the slopes mentioned in the text.
Also since the slopes are not obvious because of the amount of data in the figure, I would suggest to replace the 1600 points by X (e.g. 16) points that will represent the mean and the standard deviation of each of the (e.g. 100 points / bins) with their corresponding mean AOD.

Also in the caption of figure 10 there is no information about the lines drawn.

Absorption and AOD. Yes I agree with the fact that using aeronet SSA at 440nm would insert an uncertainty if used but it would be less than assuming a constant ssa =0.9 value for the whole dataset. As you already commenting is a mixed effect of AOD and SSA and I think it has to be mentione that e.g. Arola et al have been dealing with similar studies using the aerosol absorption optical depth AOD * (1-SSA) as the quantity that affects the ground based to satellite comparison.

Figure 10b. There are no values for february ?

Hide

AR by Melina Maria Zempila on behalf of the Authors (10 May 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (11 May 2017) by Stelios Kazadzis

AR by Melina Maria Zempila on behalf of the Authors (15 May 2017)

Short summary

NILU irradiances at five UV channels were used to produce CIE, vitamin D, and DNA- damage daily doses via a neural network (NN) model. The NN was trained with collocated weighted Brewer spectra and uncertainty in the NILU-derived UV effective doses was 7.5 %. TEMIS UV products were found to be ~ 12.5 % higher than the NILU estimates. The results improve for cloud-free days with differences of 0.57 % for CIE, 1.22 % for vitamin D, and 1.18 % for DNA damage, with standard deviations of ~ 11–13 %.