Are EARLINET and AERONET climatologies consistent?  The case of Thessaloniki, Greece

Siomos, Nikolaos; Balis, Dimitris S.; Voudouri, Kalliopi A.; Giannakaki, Eleni; Filioglou, Maria; Amiridis, Vassilis; Papayannis, Alexandros; Fragkos, Konstantinos

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11885-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 16

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11885-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

EARLINET aerosol profiling: contributions to atmospheric and...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11885-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 16

Research article

|

21 Aug 2018

Research article |

| 21 Aug 2018

Are EARLINET and AERONET climatologies consistent? The case of Thessaloniki, Greece

Nikolaos Siomos, Dimitris S. Balis, Kalliopi A. Voudouri, Eleni Giannakaki, Maria Filioglou, Vassilis Amiridis, Alexandros Papayannis, and Konstantinos Fragkos

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Aug 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Feb 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Interative comment on Are EARLINET and AERONET climatologies consistent? The case of Thessaloniki, Greece, by Siomos et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Mar 2018
- AC2: 'Response to reviewer 2', Dimitris Balis, 05 Jun 2018
RC2: 'Review of the paper: “Are EARLINET and AERONET climatologies consistent? The case of Thessaloniki, Greece” by Siomos et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Mar 2018
- AC1: 'Response to reviewer 1', Dimitris Balis, 05 Jun 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Dimitris Balis on behalf of the Authors (05 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Jun 2018) by Eduardo Landulfo

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (25 Jun 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of acp-2017-1218 by Siomos et al., 2017. I am happy that the reviewers addressed most of my concerns raised during the first interaction. Now the paper is almost ready for publication. There are just few minor issues to fix.

Line 9 Pag. 1 "quite" is not a relevant scientific word. I suggest to delete it and leave "effective" followed by a percentage into parenthesis "up to XX%"

Line 10 Pag. 2. An example also can be found also in Campbell et al., https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-15-0083.1

Line 9 Pag. 3 Please read "lidar measurements were taken"

Line 28 Pag. 4 The first line is redundant. I suggest to delete it.

Line 32 Pag. 5 Please remove the question mark

Line 9 Pag. 6 Please read: "At night, the detection of the nitrogen vibrational Raman channels (387 and 607 nm) has a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio to compute the inversion"

Line 22 Pag. 6 Also the gravity plays a role in increasing aerosol concentration closer to the surface, especially when convection is inhibited

Line 30 Pag. 6 Please read "the longer wavelengths, less sensitive to Rayleigh scattering..."

Lines 31-32 Pag. 6 Please explain more in detail (and reference it, if needed) the concept regarding the differences in structures between extinction and backscattering coefficients

Line 5 Pag 7 I would also the works of Haeffelin et al., 2012 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-011-9643-z) and Milroy et al 2012 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/929080)

Line 12 Pag. 7 It is straightforward that z' is the integration variable, then I would remove it.

Line 2 Pag. 9 The INTB is no more actual

Line 9 Please specify the type of filter (e.g. low pass filter?)

Line 8 Pag. 10 Please read: "since is too close to the ground"

Line 10 Pag. 10 Please read "it is important..."

Paragraph 4.2.1 It is scientifically relevant to quantify the correlation of EARLINET and AERONET averages (Fig 4a) using Pearson and CC cf. Lolli et al., 2013 (https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-3349-2013)

Line 32 Pag 19. The reference shows first names instead of last names

Pag 27 Fig 4b. Please read the title "AOD at 355nm limited to PBL"

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (28 Jun 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Jun 2018) by Eduardo Landulfo

AR by Dimitris Balis on behalf of the Authors (06 Jul 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Jul 2018) by Eduardo Landulfo

AR by Dimitris Balis on behalf of the Authors (18 Jul 2018) Manuscript

Short summary

In this study we investigate the climatological behavior of the aerosol optical properties over Thessaloniki during the years 2003–2017. For this purpose, measurements from two individual networks, the European Lidar Aerosol Network (EARLINET) and the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET), were deployed. The analysis implies that the EARLINET sampling schedule can be quite effective in producing data that can be applied to climatological studies.