<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article"><?xmltex \bartext{Measurement report}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-22-12311-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>Measurement report: Plume heights of the April 2021 La Soufrière
eruptions from GOES-17 side views and GOES-16–MODIS stereo views</article-title><alt-title>Plume heights of the April 2021 La Soufrière
eruptions</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Plume heights of the April 2021 La Soufri\`{e}re
eruptions}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{\'{A}.~Horv\'{a}th et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Horváth</surname><given-names>Ákos</given-names></name>
          <email>akos.horvath@uni-hamburg.de</email><email>hfakos@gmail.com</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5860-2368</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Carr</surname><given-names>James L.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>Dong L.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3490-9437</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Bruckert</surname><given-names>Julia</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Hoshyaripour</surname><given-names>Gholam Ali</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Buehler</surname><given-names>Stefan A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6389-1160</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Meteorological Institute, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Carr Astronautics, Greenbelt, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Ákos Horváth (akos.horvath@uni-hamburg.de, hfakos@gmail.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>21</day><month>September</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>18</issue>
      <fpage>12311</fpage><lpage>12330</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>5</day><month>April</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>10</day><month>May</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>2</day><month>August</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>25</day><month>August</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e148">We estimated geometric plume heights for the daytime
eruptions of La Soufrière in April 2021 using visible red band
geostationary side views and geostationary–polar orbiter stereo views. Most
of the plumes either spread near the tropopause at 16–17 km altitude or
penetrated the stratosphere at 18–20 km altitude. Overshooting tops reached
heights of up to 23 km. These geometric heights were compared with radiometric
heights corresponding to the coldest plume temperature, which usually
represent ambiguous estimates within a wide range between a tropospheric and a
stratospheric height match. The tropospheric lower bound of the radiometric
height range always underestimated the geometric height by a couple of
kilometers, even for smaller plumes. For plumes near or above the
tropopause, the midpoint or the stratospheric upper bound of the radiometric
height range was in reasonable agreement with the geometric heights. The
geometric overshooting top height, however, was always above the radiometric
height range. We also found that geometric plume heights can be estimated
from infrared band side views too, albeit with increased uncertainty
compared to the visible red band. This opens up the possibility of applying
the side view method to nighttime eruptions.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e160">The La Soufrière stratovolcano (also known as Soufrière St. Vincent;
13.33<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 61.18<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) on St. Vincent Island in
the Lesser Antilles erupted on 9 April 2021, almost exactly 42 years to the
day after its last major eruption in April 1979 (Fiske and Sigurdsson, 1982).
The multi-day eruption was observed by the Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI)
aboard Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-16 (GOES-16,
GOES-East) and GOES-17 (GOES-West), providing full disk (FD) imagery at
10 min frequency. The GOES-16 mesoscale sector (MESO2) was centered over
the volcano at 09:00 UTC on 10 April, providing 1 min imagery of the plume
in a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> domain until 05:59 UTC on 16 April. By
tracking the emergence of cold bubbles near the volcano in animated infrared
(IR) brightness temperature images, we counted 49 eruptions until 22 April,
although it is noted that pinpointing the start and end of an individual pulse
is somewhat subjective. The first eruption occurred at 12:40 UTC on 9 April,
followed by five more on that day. The most intense activity was seen on 10 and 11 April, with 22 and 9 eruptions, respectively. On 12, 13, and 14 April, there were four, three, and two
eruptions, respectively. Finally, there was one
eruption each on 16, 18, and 22 April. This series of eruptions released a significant amount of ash
and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> into the free troposphere, caused widespread ashfall on St. Vincent and neighboring islands including Barbados (165 km east), and
prompted the evacuation of tens of thousands of people (Global Volcanism
Program, 2021). The plumes mostly drifted east-northeast in the Northern
Hemisphere and reached Taiwan 10 d after the initial eruption on 19 April
(Babu et al., 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e211">The GOES-16 and GOES-17 view geometries for La Soufrière are plotted in
Fig. 1. GOES-16, stationed at 75.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, observes the volcano
from the southwest (view azimuth of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">133</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) at a small view
zenith angle (VZA) of 22.4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. GOES-17, stationed at
137.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, observes the volcano almost exactly from the west
(view azimuth of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">93.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) at a very large VZA of
84.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, thanks to La Soufrière's location near the limb
of the GOES-17 FD image. Such oblique observations allow plume height
estimation by the recently introduced geometric side view technique
(Horváth et al., 2021a, b). Plume height can also be estimated by
the traditional radiometric method of matching the minimum 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
brightness temperature (BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, band 14) or “dark pixel temperature” to a
temperature profile (de Michele et al., 2019; Oppenheimer, 1998; Prata and
Grant, 2001).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e308">GOES-16 (dashed red) and GOES-17 (solid blue)
<bold>(a)</bold> view zenith angle and <bold>(b)</bold> view azimuth angle for La
Soufrière (orange triangle and letter “S”). The negative view azimuth
angle is measured counterclockwise from north.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e324">In this measurement report, we derive daytime plume heights from 30 GOES-17
band 2 (red, 0.65 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) visible images that facilitate the side view
technique. These geometric heights are compared with temperature-based
heights corresponding to the GOES-16 dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the plume. At
the overpass times of the Terra and Aqua satellites, the results are also
validated with stereo heights retrieved by the automated 3D Winds
algorithm (Carr et al., 2019) using GOES-16 and Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) visible red band images of the plume. A broad
comparison with Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite
Observation (CALIPSO) far-field lidar heights is also provided.</p>
      <p id="d1e346">The report is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we briefly describe the
side view, temperature-based, and stereo height retrieval techniques and
discuss the GOES FD and MESO2 observation timelines. In Sect. 3, the
different height retrievals are demonstrated for seven specific eruption
plumes that represent a range of explosivity and observing conditions. In
Sect. 4, we characterize the biases of the temperature method using all 30
cases of side view height estimates and also compare our results with plume
heights measured during La Soufrière's 1979 eruption. Section 5
concludes the report with a summary and outlook.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Height estimation methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>GOES-17 side views</title>
      <p id="d1e364">The near-limb portion of geostationary imagery provides close-to-orthogonal
side views of eruption plumes protruding from the earth ellipsoid. Such
oblique observations facilitate point estimates of near-field plume height
by determining the angular extent of the eruption column between the known
vent location and the plume top (Horváth et al., 2021a). The measurement
principle is sketched in Fig. 2a. The apparent height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
product of the column's angular extent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as observed by the sensor
at a VZA of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the known distance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between the vent and the
sensor. Height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is measured along axis <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is
perpendicular to the look vector connecting the sensor to the vent. Because
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≪</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the apparent height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is foreshortened by a factor
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>sin⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> compared to the true height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> measured
along the local vertical axis <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Foreshortening is a trivial error in
near-limb views with VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, for which the
technique was originally devised.</p>
      <p id="d1e485">Foreshortening, however, becomes more severe at smaller VZA, because a unit
angular sampling distance (14 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rad</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per pixel in the visible band)
corresponds to a larger and larger true height differential. Thus, the
isolines of true height get increasingly compressed with decreasing VZA, as
demonstrated in Fig. 2b–d. Figure 2b and d show the same La
Soufrière eruption plume observed, respectively, by GOES-17 at VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 85<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and GOES-16 at VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 22<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (see
also Sect. 3.4). In the GOES-17 side view, the plume top can be easily
located between 16–17 km.</p>
      <p id="d1e530">Height estimation, however, is rather difficult in the more overhead GOES-16
view. A key step is to visually determine the plume point that lies directly
above the vent along the local vertical. This is relatively straightforward
in the GOES-17 side view, which shows a nearly vertical column with a
well-defined tip. In contrast, GOES-16 mostly observes the spreading
umbrella at the top of the eruption column. In this case, the center of the
ellipse fitted to the umbrella might be used as the characteristic point for
height estimation. However, ellipse fitting can be uncertain when the
umbrella is amorphous, which can cause a large uncertainty in the plume
height estimate due to the severe foreshortening at small VZA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e536">Side view measurement principle and increase of
foreshortening at smaller view zenith angles. <bold>(a)</bold> The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis is
the local vertical and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> axis is perpendicular to the
sensor-to-volcano look vector. The true height and the apparent
(foreshortened) height of the eruption column are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively. The angular extent of the column is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, as measured
from a distance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and at a view zenith angle of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Examples of
eruption columns observed in channel 2 visible images (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
magnification) at decreasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: <bold>(b)</bold> La Soufrière, 11 April 2021 at 13:30 UTC by GOES-17; <bold>(c)</bold> Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai,
19 December 2021 at 20:30 UTC by GOES-17; and <bold>(d)</bold> is the same as <bold>(b)</bold> but by GOES-16. The volcano is marked by the magenta triangle
and the elevation markings indicate the true height in kilometers. In panel <bold>(d)</bold>, the dashed yellow line is a circle of 5.2 km radius fitted to
the umbrella.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e637">Figure 2c shows the GOES-17 view of a recent Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai
eruption taken at an intermediate VZA of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">49</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The snapshot captures a rising column without a developed umbrella.
Although the true height isolines are more densely packed than in the
near-limb view of Fig. 2b, a column height of 7–8 km can still be determined
with relative ease.</p>
      <p id="d1e658">The minimum VZA at which the side view technique is still useful depends on
factors such as plume morphology, tilt, and wind speed and is thus a bit
of a judgment call. In general, error in locating the plume top point
directly above the vent causes larger height errors at small VZA. Identifying this
characteristic point with certainty is more difficult at small VZA, when the
spreading umbrella is mostly observed. The height error caused by wind-induced tilt
or drift away from the local vertical is also larger in significantly
foreshortened images. As an example, a 1 pixel error in the plume top
location for the cases shown in Fig. 2b–d introduces a height
error of 502, 660, and 1312 m, respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e661">Horváth et al. (2021a, b) and the current study analyze eruptions
that were imaged by GOES-17 at VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. With a
relaxed constraint on VZA, the widened limb swaths of the operational
geostationary satellites include many more volcanoes that could potentially
be monitored with the side view technique. For illustration, Fig. 3 maps the
locations of volcanoes that are observed at VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and erupted in the past 100 years (historic
eruption data were obtained from the Holocene Volcano List of the Global
Volcanism Program, 2013). The VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> threshold
is somewhat arbitrary, but, in our experience, height retrievals are still
feasible at these angles. As shown, most of the major volcanic regions,
including the Pacific Ring of Fire, are observed under relatively favorable
(i.e., oblique) conditions by at least one satellite. Note that there are
overlaps between the limb swaths, and several regions are even imaged from
opposite azimuths: the Peru–Chile arc (from west by GOES-17 and from east by
Meteosat-11), Iceland (from west by GOES-16 and from east by Meteosat-9), and the
Kamchatka–Kuril arc and Papua New Guinea (from west by Feng-Yun-4A and
Electro-L N3 and from east by GOES-17). Multiple independent retrievals
would allow quality control by consistency checks and could provide more
accurate height estimates for tilted plumes by averaging, because tilt
errors are of opposite signs for opposite view azimuths.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e720">Limb areas of geostationary satellites between a VZA of
80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (dashed line) and 90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (solid line):
<bold>(a)</bold> GOES-17 (G17, 137.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W), Electro-L N2 (EL2,
14.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W), Electro-L N3 (EL3, 76<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E),
GEO-KOMPSAT-2A (GK2A, 128.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E), Himawari-8 (Hi8,
140.7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) and <bold>(b)</bold> GOES-16 (G16,
75.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W), Meteosat-11 (M11, 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), Meteosat-9
(M9, 45.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E), Feng-Yun-4A (FY4A, 104.7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E),
Feng-Yun-4B (FY4B, 133<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E). INSAT-3D (82<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E)
is not shown; its coverage is similar to that of EL3. Triangles indicate
volcanoes that erupted within the limb areas in the past 100 years.
Similarly, crosses indicate volcanoes imaged under a relaxed constraint of
80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e888">The technique is best suited to daytime visible red band images, which offer
the highest horizontal resolution of 500 m at the subsatellite point (Kalluri
et al., 2018) and a vertically projected instantaneous field of view (or
near-limb vertical resolution) which is only slightly coarser than that.
Besides GOES-16 and GOES-17, GEO-KOMPSAT-2A, Himawari-8, and Feng-Yun-4A/4B
also carry a 500 m visible band. The rest of the current fleet of
geostationary satellites have visible bands with a resolution of 1–3 km, but
the next-generation imagers will all have sub-km-resolution channels.</p>
      <p id="d1e891">The validation by Horváth et al. (2021b), which was limited to daytime
cases with VZA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, found a typical height
uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m (or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> visible pixel) for near-vertical
eruption columns. Although the current study also focuses on the analysis of
visible images, we show that large plumes that reach the upper troposphere
or lower stratosphere can be identified in near-limb IR images too. A
similar <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> IR pixel uncertainty in the measured vertical extent of a
column corresponds to a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km height uncertainty due to the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> coarser resolution of these bands. Such uncertainty can still be
acceptable for nighttime height estimation, considering that radiometric
methods have a typical uncertainty of 3–4 km for high-level plumes (Thomas
and Siddans, 2019).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>GOES-16 brightness temperatures</title>
      <p id="d1e971">Plume height is also estimated with the traditional single-channel
“temperature method”, which matches the dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to the ERA5
(Hersbach et al., 2020) temperature profile. To avoid the limb cooling
effects in GOES-17 data, we instead used the GOES-16 BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> obtained
under small VZAs. Although these height estimates are subject to a number of
potential errors (thermal disequilibrium, semitransparency, or uncertain
chemical composition of the plume; temperature inversions), the temperature
method is still an indispensable and oft-used tool thanks to its simplicity
and the availability of IR radiometer channels aboard most meteorological
satellites.</p>
      <p id="d1e992">Figure 4 demonstrates the commonly arising problem of non-unique solutions in the
case of an inversion. Here we plot the envelope of the nighttime and
daytime temperature profiles as well as the daytime-mean profile for 9–14 April. The atmospheric temperature structure within the eruption height
range (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) varied little during this period and was
characterized by a strong inversion at the cold point tropopause located
near 193.7 K and 16.6 km. For this profile, plume temperatures colder than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">220</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K correspond to two height solutions: a tropospheric
(minimum) one and a stratospheric (maximum) one. For example, for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>BT</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">210</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K, the minimum plume height is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km and the maximum is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km.
Because the tropospheric and stratospheric lapse rates are of opposite sign
but comparable magnitude for a tropical temperature profile (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively), the average of these two solutions,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mean</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km, gives a height near to (slightly above) the
tropopause. As we will show in Sect. 4.1, this midpoint height is the best
match to the geometric height for a certain plume temperature range.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1125">The envelope of nighttime (magenta shading) and daytime
(green shading) ERA5 temperature profiles and the daytime-mean temperature
profile (black line) for La Soufrière over the main eruptive period of
9–14 April 2021. As a demonstration of the temperature method, the plume
heights <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> corresponding to a dark pixel temperature of 210 K (two
solutions) and 260 K (single solution) are also marked.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1146">In contrast, plume temperatures warmer than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">220</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K have a
single tropospheric height match (for consistency, this is still termed the “minimum
height”). For example, for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>BT</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">260</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K, the matching height is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km.</p>
      <p id="d1e1194">Figure 4 also suggests that for stratospheric plumes, especially in the
tropics, the maximum BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> near the center of the plume could be a
better choice for radiometric height estimation. This was dramatically
demonstrated by stereo height retrievals for the recent Hunga Tonga–Hunga
Ha'apai eruption (Carr et al., 2022). This topic, however, is beyond the
scope of the current study. Here, we use the minimum BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, as is
customary, but consider all three possible radiometric heights (min, max,
mean) for colder plumes and investigate which one is closest to the
geometric height estimate.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>GOES-16–MODIS stereo views</title>
      <p id="d1e1223">We also derive stereo heights for the Terra and Aqua overpasses on 10 April
by combining GOES-16 and MODIS red band images of the plume – the GOES–GOES
combination could not be used due to the impossibility of template matching
from low VZA to high VZA. The 3D Winds algorithm applied here was
developed for tracking wind tracers from multiple satellites; the version
for a geostationary–polar orbiter pair is described in Carr et al. (2019).
The technique retrieves both the height and the horizontal motion of a
volcanic plume and has already been applied to Himawari-8–MODIS
observations of the 2019 Raikoke eruption (Horváth et al., 2021b) and
Himawari-8–GOES-17 observations of the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai
eruption (Carr et al., 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e1226">The algorithm requires a triplet of consecutive geostationary FD images and
a single MODIS granule, the former temporally bracketing the latter. Feature
templates are taken from the central repetition of the geostationary triplet
and matched to the other two repetitions 10 min before and after, providing
the primary source of plume velocity information. The geostationary feature
template is then matched to the MODIS granule, which is observed from a
different perspective and thus provides the stereoscopic height information.
The apparent shift in the pattern from each match, modeled pixel times, and
satellite ephemerides feed the retrieval model to enable the simultaneous
calculation of the horizontal advection vector and its geometric height.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>ABI observation timelines</title>
      <p id="d1e1237">During the eruption, GOES-16 operated in the default scan Mode 6, providing
FD imagery every 10 min. GOES-17, on the other hand, followed the
15 min FD scan Mode 3 cooling timeline between 06:00–12:00 UTC to
mitigate the loop heat pipe anomaly (McCorkel et al., 2019), and the
10 min FD scan Mode 6 for the rest of the day. Between 09:00 UTC on 10 April and 05:59 UTC on 16 April, 1 min GOES-16 MESO2 observations were also
available.</p>
      <p id="d1e1240">The ABI images are tagged by the scan start time, which is included in the
radiance filename. La Soufrière, however, is observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> min after the scan start time in
Mode 6 and Mode 3 FD, respectively (Carr et al., 2020). Considering the
slight time differences between scan start times too, the GOES-16 MESO2
trails the GOES-17 Mode 3 FD by 4–5 min. In contrast, the
non-simultaneity between the GOES-16 and GOES-17 Mode 6 FD observations is
less than 30 s in the same 10 min slot. Therefore, we paired a
GOES-17 FD with a near-simultaneous GOES-16 FD when both were acquired in
Mode 6. However, a Mode 3 GOES-17 FD was instead paired with the GOES-16
MESO2, which trailed the Mode 3 GOES-17 FD by 5 min, in order to minimize the time gap between
the geometric and radiometric height estimates.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Eruption examples</title>
      <p id="d1e1272">For each case, we plot two consecutive (10 or 15 min) GOES-17 scans,
while plume development over a 1 h period is shown in the animations in the Supplement. For visual clarity, the visible images were magnified by a
factor of 8 and were enhanced by the Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram
Equalization (CLAHE) plugin of the Fiji package (Schindelin et al., 2012).
The GOES-17 images were additionally rotated counterclockwise by the
geodetic colatitude (thus, top is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> east and bottom is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> west). Fixed grid data were used without any reprojection.
Reported plume heights are above mean sea level rather than above the vent
(summit elevation 1220 m).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><?xmltex \opttitle{10~April, 09:45--10:00\,UTC}?><title>10 April, 09:45–10:00 UTC</title>
      <p id="d1e1297">This eruption started during twilight, when the sun was still below the
horizon at the volcano's location. In the 09:45 UTC FD image (Fig. 5a,
Supplement Animation 1), GOES-17 observes the western side of the towering
eruption column against the background of the atmosphere illuminated by the
sun rising in the distant east. The long shadow of the plume is faintly
discernible, with the column's gable-like top reaching an altitude of 22 km in
the contrast-enhanced side view. The upper half of the column above
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km is also identifiable in the 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> GOES-17 image by
reduced brightness temperatures (Fig. 5c). The resolution of this channel is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> coarser than that of the visible red channel; nevertheless, the
center of the IR pixel marking the top of the plume is near to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> km. The lower half of the plume, however, does not show enough temperature
contrast against the background BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is generally subject to
increased cooling near the limb due to water vapor absorption.</p>
      <p id="d1e1346">The corresponding 09:50 UTC GOES-16 MESO2 visible image, offering more of an
overhead view, shows the overshooting top (OT) ascending above the
illuminated parts of lower umbrella layers that spread near the level of
neutral buoyancy (Fig. 5e). The parallax between the volcano and the OT is
9.3 km, as indicated by the yellow arrow. If the OT is assumed to lie above
the vent, its height can be estimated from the parallax simply as
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.3</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tan</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.4</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">22.6</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the view zenith angle. This
back-of-the-envelope height estimate is consistent with the GOES-17 side
view estimate, considering that the small GOES-16 VZA results in a
relatively large height error, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km, for a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> pixel error in
the parallax. Bending by the wind can introduce further height error – there
were 16 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> westerly winds at the tropopause – although the OT is
located along the view azimuth direction, suggesting small bending for this
strong plume.</p>
      <p id="d1e1429">The GOES-16 dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 191.8 K is found at the OT location (Fig. 5g). Because this temperature is close to the ERA5 cold point, it
corresponds to a narrow radiometric height range of 16.4–17.2 km near the
tropopause. The measured temperature is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K colder than the
ambient temperature at the OT height of 22 km (see Fig. 4) and, thus, it is
more representative of the umbrella height.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1454">The eruption plume on 10 April 2021 at (left
column) 09:45 UTC and (right column) 10:00 UTC in (top to
bottom) GOES-17 channel 2, GOES-17 channel 14, GOES-16 channel 2, and
GOES-16 channel 14 imagery. The GOES-16 images are from the trailing (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> min) MESO2 scans. La Soufrière is marked by the white triangle, and
the image in panel <bold>(a)</bold> was pseudocolored using the “Orange Hot”
palette. In the GOES-17 side views, the yellow line is the baseline, the
elevation markings indicate height in kilometers, and the white square,
cross, and circle respectively depict the maximum, mean, and minimum plume
heights derived from the GOES-16 dark pixel temperature, whose location is
marked by the black star in panels <bold>(g)</bold> and <bold>(h)</bold>. In panel <bold>(e)</bold>, the arrow indicates the ellipsoid-projected distance between
the volcano and the overshooting top along the GOES-16 view azimuth of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">133</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1504">By 10:00 UTC, the plume had developed a large, multi-layered umbrella (Fig. 5b and
f). The dominant spreading level is at 18.0–18.5 km, with a collapsing
OT at 21.0 km according to the GOES-17 side view. The centerline of the
umbrella can be located at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km altitude in the GOES-17
IR image too (Fig. 5d). The GOES-16 plume-top BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> shows a cold ring
surrounding a central horseshoe-shaped warmer area (Fig. 5h), which is
similar to the cloud-top IR patterns seen in severe deep convection
(Setvák et al., 2013). The minimum BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 197.6 K is located
considerably downwind of the volcano. The upper (stratospheric) end of the
corresponding radiometric height range of 15.3–19.1 km agrees fairly well
with the side-view umbrella height estimate. Comparison of the GOES-16 visible
and IR images suggests that the central warm area is associated with the
highest parts of the plume near the OT. The maximum temperature of this
region is 203.8 K, leading to an upper height solution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km, which is above the umbrella but still 1 km below the side-view OT height
estimate.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>3.1.1</label><title>Minimum plume height estimated from the earth's effective shadow height</title>
      <p id="d1e1552">As mentioned previously, when the first GOES-17 image was acquired (FD scan
start time 09:45 UTC, actual observation time 09:50 UTC), the sun was still
below the horizon at La Soufrière. The plume is discernible in the
visible band images only because it rose above the earth's shadow and its top
became illuminated. Thus, calculating the earth's shadow height allows us to put
an independent lower limit on plume height. The schematic of twilight
observations of the plume is given in Fig. 6. The earth's geometric shadow
is defined by the point where the solar ray grazing the surface intersects
the local vertical.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1557">The geometry of an eruption column protruding through
the earth's shadow at twilight. At a solar depression of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, a grazing
ray tangent to the surface at point <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> casts a geometric shadow of height
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at the volcano's location <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Grazing rays below the screening height
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are strongly attenuated by air molecules, haze, and meteorological
or volcanic clouds, raising the base of the scattering layer and thus
increasing the effective shadow height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Here the spherical
earth's radius is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the apparent decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> due to atmospheric
refraction is omitted.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f06.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e1638">Here, “geometric” refers to the shadow that the earth would cast if it had no
atmosphere. For a spherical earth of radius <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and an unrefracted solar
depression angle of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the geometric shadow height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M128" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>sec</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            The atmosphere introduces two opposing effects. First, refraction decreases
the apparent solar depression by an angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; this in itself reduces
the shadow height. Second, below the so-called screening height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
the atmosphere is nearly opaque to solar grazing rays due to strong
attenuation through the long air path by molecules, haze, and potentially
clouds. The screening height, which decreases with increasing wavelength,
effectively raises the base of the scattering layer and thus the shadow
height. With these two effects accounted for, the earth's effective shadow
height can be written as
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M131" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scr</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mtext>sec</mml:mtext><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            Of the two effects, atmospheric screening is the easier to handle. Twilight
photometry of aerosols and noctilucent clouds established that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scr</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km is a reasonable range for the red band screening height in
typical cloud-free conditions (Kumari et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 1984). In
our case, however, the atmosphere between the volcano and the tangent point
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (located <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">275</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km from the volcano along a solar azimuth of
81<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was covered by a thick ash cloud from prior eruptions
as well as cirrus clouds. The BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> near the tangent point varied
between 210–220 K, suggesting a screening height of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scr</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–13 km. As we show later, the side view and stereo
retrievals also indicated cirrus at 12–13 km altitude.</p>
      <p id="d1e1826">The twilight refraction effect, however, can only be roughly estimated. It
is hopeless to predict refraction accurately near and below the horizon,
because it depends on the lapse rate in the boundary layer, which is simply
too variable due to weather (Young, 2004). Sunrise and sunset observations
revealed that a reasonable range for the variation of the horizontal
refraction angle for an unknown site is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> around the value predicted for standard conditions
(Schaefer and Liller, 1990). In our work, the grazing ray refraction at the
surface <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was interpolated to the encountered solar depression
angles from the standard values given in Garfinkel (1967), resulting in a
typical range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–1.4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. These surface refraction angles were then
pressure scaled to the screening height of 12–13 km (or 15 %–20 % of the
surface pressure), leading to a final refraction angle range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ω</mml:mi><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–0.27<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. For such a large screening height, which
is the dominant factor in our case, the refraction correction amounts to a
relatively small (at most <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) reduction in shadow height.</p>
      <p id="d1e1932">As shown in Fig. 7, umbrella layer 1 (U<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) first became visible in the
09:48 UTC MESO2 image. In the next 3 min, a second umbrella layer
(U<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the OT emerged and then expanded and moved eastward. The earth's
effective shadow height, calculated from Eq. (2) using the indicated solar
depression angle and the atmospheric screening and refraction corrections
discussed above, decreased by 0.8–0.9 km min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1967">Minute-scale evolution of the eruption plume on 10 April 2021 between (left to right) 09:48–09:51 UTC in GOES-16 MESO2
imagery: <bold>(a–d)</bold> channel 2 and <bold>(e–h)</bold> channel 14.
The labeled plume features are umbrella layer 1 (U<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), umbrella
layer 2 (U<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the overshooting top (OT). The unrefracted solar
depression angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the estimated effective shadow height
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the dark pixel temperature <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>BT</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and its location
(black star), and the corresponding min–max radiometric range of the plume
height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are also indicated.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2049">The unrefracted solar depression was computed with the Solar Geometry
Calculator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Global Monitoring Laboratory
(<uri>https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/antuv/SolarCalc.jsp</uri>, last access: 16 September 2022). Plume height must increase
from east to west, i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OT</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, because the eastern
side of each of these layers gets illuminated by the rising sun (i.e., there
is no obscuration by the adjacent layer to the east). Using the lower end of
the shadow height range, we can conservatively estimate that
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OT</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km; that is,
the OT reached at least the tropopause. A less conservative estimate based
on the upper end of the shadow height range suggests a minimum OT height of
18.4 km.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{10~April, 16:20--16:30\,UTC}?><title>10 April, 16:20–16:30 UTC</title>
      <p id="d1e2143">This was one of the two most intense daytime eruptions. At 16:20 UTC, the
rising column with a pileus on top is captured at an altitude of
10.5–11.0 km in the GOES-17 side view (Fig. 8a, Supplement Animation 2). The
GOES-16 minimum BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 245.0 K corresponds to a single underestimated
height solution of 9.3 km. At 16:30 UTC, the plume features an OT at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km altitude and a large umbrella spreading at
18.0–18.5 km, according to the side view (Fig. 8b). Thus, the plume rises at
a fairly rapid average speed of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. For this
thick and opaque plume, the dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 197.3 K leads to a
radiometric height range of 15.8–18.3 km, the upper end of which agrees well
with the geometric umbrella height estimate.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2198">The eruption plume on 10 April 2021 at <bold>(a, c)</bold> 16:20 UTC and <bold>(b, d)</bold> 16:30 UTC in GOES-17 imagery: <bold>(a, b)</bold> channel 2 and <bold>(c, d)</bold> channel 9 running difference, with elevation
markings as in Fig. 5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2219">Here we note that this eruption almost reached the 24 km maximum height
measurable with the side view technique at La Soufrière's location.
Above that height, the plume would have been cut off by the limb mask
currently applied to ABI images by NOAA. We recommend retaining space pixels
in future ABI data releases to avoid such limitations and also to ensure
consistency with Himawari-8 imagery, which smoothly transitions into space.</p>
      <p id="d1e2223">The plume was generally difficult to identify in any of the IR channels; in
fact, at 16:20 UTC, the column rising in the low or mid-troposphere could not be
identified at all (Fig. 8c). At 16:30 UTC, the upper part of the umbrella
above <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km did appear as an area of slightly reduced
temperatures; however, the contrast was low against a cold background caused
by a fairly moist atmosphere and the significant presence of clouds and
suspended ash, especially towards the limb. We found that the umbrella could
be best discerned in the channel 9 (6.9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mid-level water vapor band)
running difference, obtained by differencing the 16:30 and 16:20 UTC
images (Fig. 8d). Here, the pattern of negative temperature differences has
a centerline at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km, consistent with the umbrella height
deduced from the visible image.</p>
      <p id="d1e2256">This case exemplifies that the optimal IR channel for plume identification
varies with the atmospheric temperature and moisture profile, and that
change detection can be aided by the computation of running differences when
multi-temporal imagery is available. We further explore this issue in the
next section.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><?xmltex \opttitle{11~April, 10:45--11:00\,UTC}?><title>11 April, 10:45–11:00 UTC</title>
      <p id="d1e2268">This explosion produced a mushroom cloud, which reached 18.0–18.5 km
altitude according to the side views (Fig. 9a and b, Supplement
Animation 3). The corresponding dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K) implies radiometric heights of 14.7–19.4 km. The geometric height
falls between the midpoint and upper end of this height range. The umbrella
can be identified at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km altitude in the IR side views too
(Fig. 9c and d). In this case, however, lower parts of the eruption
column down to 7–8 km could also be observed, reflecting background
conditions (moisture, clouds, ash) different than encountered in the
previous examples.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2302">The eruption plume on 11 April 2021 at <bold>(a, c)</bold> 10:45 UTC and <bold>(b, d)</bold> 11:00 UTC in GOES-17 imagery: <bold>(a, b)</bold> channel 2 and <bold>(c, d)</bold> channel 14, with elevation markings as in
Fig. 5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2323">This prompted us to compare the side views of the 10:45 UTC plume in all nine
ABI IR channels. In Fig. 10, the color scale is stretched individually for
each channel between the minimum and maximum brightness temperatures of the
scene. In the water vapor bands (channels 8, 9, and 10), only the top of the
plume is recognizable. As the altitude of the water vapor weighting
function's peak decreases from band 8 to band 10, slightly more of the
umbrella becomes discernible, but detection is generally limited to heights
above <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km. In the rest of the IR channels, which are less
affected by water vapor absorption, lower parts of the plume down to 7–8 km
are also observable, with slight differences in detectability between bands.
Bands 12 and 16, however, show noticeably increased noise as a consequence
of the loop heat pipe anomaly.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2339">The eruption plume on 11 April 2021 at 10:45 UTC in
GOES-17 imagery: <bold>(a)</bold> the visible channel 2 and <bold>(b–j)</bold> the IR channels 8–16.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><?xmltex \opttitle{11~April, 13:30--13:40\,UTC}?><title>11 April, 13:30–13:40 UTC</title>
      <p id="d1e2364">This was the largest of the daytime eruptions. In the 10 min slot ending
at 13:30 UTC, the column reached an altitude of 16.0–16.5 km in the GOES-17
image, rising with an average speed of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 11a, Supplement Animation 4). The likely warm-biased dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of
216.2 K corresponds to a wide radiometric height range of 12.8–23.5 km, the
lower bound of which underestimates the geometric height by more than 3 km.
Here, the mean of the radiometric height solutions (18.1 km) is a better match
to the near-tropopause geometric height. By 13:40 UTC, the plume formed an
umbrella at 18.5–19.0 km (Fig. 11b).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2400">The eruption plume on 11 April 2021 at <bold>(a, c)</bold> 13:30 UTC and <bold>(b, d)</bold> 13:40 UTC in GOES-17 imagery: <bold>(a, b)</bold> channel 2 and <bold>(c, d)</bold> channel 14, with elevation markings as in
Fig. 5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2421">For this thick opaque plume top, the upper bound of the 15.0–19.1 km
radiometric height range, obtained from a dark pixel temperature of 199.6 K,
is in excellent agreement with the geometric height estimate. Note that the
plume tops can be identified in the IR side views at approximately the same
altitude as in the visible side views (Fig. 11c and d).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><?xmltex \opttitle{13~April, 10:30--10:45\,UTC}?><title>13 April, 10:30–10:45 UTC</title>
      <p id="d1e2433">An extensive layer of cirrus (Ci) clouds covered the area during this
eruption. At 10:30 UTC, the dark contours of the rising column can be faintly
seen through the veil of Ci, which is accentuated by the long air path of
the side view (Fig. 12a, Supplement Animation 5). The plume top location is
difficult to determine precisely, but it is still below the Ci at
approximately 10–11 km altitude. The single radiometric height solution of
5.4 km, corresponding to a dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 269.2 K, is a significant
underestimate.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2447">The eruption plume on 13 April 2021 at <bold>(a, c)</bold> 10:30 UTC and <bold>(b, d)</bold> 10:45 UTC in GOES-17 imagery: <bold>(a, b)</bold> channel 2 and <bold>(c, d)</bold> channel 14, with elevation markings as in
Fig. 5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2468">By 10:45 UTC, the plume breached the Ci layer and featured an umbrella
spreading at 17.0–17.5 km with an OT at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 km (Fig. 12b).
Note that the Ci intersects the plume at an altitude of 12–13 km, which
agrees well with the Ci heights retrieved from GOES–MODIS stereo pairs (see
Sect. 3.7). The minimum BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 203.4 K implies a radiometric height
range of 14.2–19.8 km, the midpoint of which is a good match to the
geometric umbrella height.</p>
      <p id="d1e2488">The thicker strands of Ci appear as horizontal stripes of colder temperature
in the IR side views (Fig. 12c and d). The growing column is
undetectable in band 14 (or in any other IR band) at 10:30 UTC. In the
10:45 UTC IR image, however, the above-Ci umbrella and OT can both be located
at about the same height as in the visible side views.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e2493">The eruption plume on 22 April 2021 at <bold>(a, c)</bold> 15:10 UTC and <bold>(b, d)</bold> 15:20 UTC in GOES-17 imagery: <bold>(a, b)</bold> channel 2 and <bold>(c, d)</bold> channel 13 running difference, with
elevation markings as in Fig. 5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS6">
  <label>3.6</label><?xmltex \opttitle{22~April, 15:10--15:20\,UTC}?><title>22 April, 15:10–15:20 UTC</title>
      <p id="d1e2523">Our final example was the last eruption in the current series, which
produced a relatively small and fully tropospheric plume. The atmosphere was
noticeably drier and clearer on this day, with less haze, only low-level
clouds, and no suspended ash from prior eruptions (the penultimate small
explosion occurred 4 d earlier, on 18 April). The height of the
eruption
column increased from 4.0 to 10.5–11.0 km between 15:10 and 15:20 UTC,
as determined from the visible side views (Fig. 13a and b, Supplement
Animation 6). In both time slots there was a single radiometric height
solution that increased from 2.0 km (BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">286.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K) to 9.0 km
(BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">244.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K) and thus had a low bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km.</p>
      <p id="d1e2574">This case also demonstrated that, under sufficiently clear and dry
conditions, even small plumes can be detected (and detected at the correct height) in
the IR side views. As shown in Fig. 13c and d, practically the entire
eruption column all the way down to the vent could be identified in the
channel 13 (10.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) running difference images. The “clean” IR
longwave window band worked particularly well here because it is the least
sensitive among the IR window bands to water vapor.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS7">
  <label>3.7</label><title>GOES-16–MODIS stereo retrievals and CALIPSO lidar profiles</title>
      <p id="d1e2595">The MODIS Terra and MODIS Aqua instruments imaged La Soufrière on 10 April at 14:36 and 17:42 UTC, respectively. By that time, the ash from
prior eruptions had spread hundreds of kilometers east and also expanded in
the north–south direction, forming a triangle-shaped volcanic cloud. There
were 23 eruptions before the Terra overpass and two eruptions between the
Aqua and Terra overpasses, including the large explosion discussed in Sect. 3.2.</p>
      <p id="d1e2598">As shown in Fig. 14a and c, the brownish ash layer was observed
against the background of white meteorological clouds. The crescent-shaped
Ci bands likely indicate modulation by gravity waves emanating from the
explosions. The interpretation of retrievals in such a complex multi-layer
scene requires caution. The 3D Winds algorithm (Carr et al., 2019) tracks
targets (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> image chips in this case) without
classifying their type; therefore, the height and motion retrievals plotted
in Fig. 14b and d contain both ash and cloud targets.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e2624">True color images of the plume on 10 April 2021 by
<bold>(a)</bold> MODIS Terra (14:36 UTC) and <bold>(c)</bold> MODIS Aqua (17:42 UTC).
The corresponding GOES-16–MODIS 3D Winds stereo heights are plotted in
panels <bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold>, with motion vectors shown for a random
5 % of retrievals. La Soufrière is marked by the black triangle and
letter “S”.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2646">Comparisons with lidar measurements revealed that stereo matchers generally
track the lower layer in a two-layered scene when the top layer's optical
depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">≲</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Mitra et al., 2021, for a recent
study). In the semi-transparent parts of the
ash layer, the algorithm tracks the lower-level meteorological clouds, which
have more texture and contrast. The stereo retrievals in ash-free areas
indicate Ci at up to 12–13 km altitude (yellow hue), which agrees well with the
side-view Ci height estimate in Sect. 3.5. From this, we conclude that 3D
Winds heights above 13 km (an orange or more reddish hue) can confidently be
classified as ash.</p>
      <p id="d1e2659">The maximum stereo-retrieved plume height is 22.9 km for both the Terra and
Aqua scenes, which is in good agreement with the largest OT heights obtained
from the GOES-17 side views. Both scenes show a general decrease in height
as the ash was advected east by westerly winds of 15–20 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
plume height immediately east of the volcano was 17–18 km during the Terra
overpass. During the Aqua overpass, however, the plume east-northeast of the
volcano was at a higher altitude of 19–21 km, which was undoubtedly a
result of the powerful explosion that occurred at 16:30 UTC (see Sect. 3.2).
By the time the plume reached Barbados, its height had subsided to 16–17 km.
Near longitude 58<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, the retrieved plume height reduced to
14–15 km, and even further east, the stereo retrievals started to pick up the
height of the Ci as the plume became too tenuous to track, although the true
color images still indicate the presence of a thin ash layer that reduces
the brightness of the white clouds underneath. Overall, these stereo plume
heights are in good agreement with the near-field plume heights derived
previously from the side views.</p>
      <p id="d1e2683">The CALIPSO satellite unfortunately did not fly over the volcano. However,
there were 13 CALIPSO orbits between 10–13 April that intersected the
far-field plume as it drifted east-northeast across the Atlantic Ocean.
Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) backscatter
profiles indicated volcanic particles at between 5–20 km, which is generally
consistent with the height range of the side view retrievals (see Table S1
in the Supplement). A more detailed analysis of the CALIOP profiles obtained
closest to La Soufrière is given in Appendix A.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{15}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 15</label><caption><p id="d1e2688">Comparison of GOES-17 side view heights (blue) and
GOES-16 temperature-based heights (red) as a function of GOES-16 dark pixel
BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: <bold>(a)</bold> rank order and <bold>(b)</bold> absolute value.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">U</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the heights of the umbrella and the overshooting top,
respectively; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is only estimated from GOES-17. The height of the ERA5
cold point tropopause is also indicated. In panel <bold>(b)</bold>, the dashed
lines are linear fits to the GOES-17 umbrella and OT heights (cases 15, 18,
19 are excluded for OT).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f15.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Overview of all daytime height retrievals</title>
      <p id="d1e2765">The height retrievals for all 30 analyzed daytime cases are plotted in Fig. 15, with the actual data listed in Table S1 in the
Supplement. For an easy comparison of the geometric and radiometric heights
in individual cases, the results are indexed and plotted in Fig. 15a
according to the rank order of GOES-16 dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. For plume
temperatures warmer than 220 K, the single radiometric height always
underestimates the side view height. These cases represent smaller fully
tropospheric eruptions (e.g., Sect. 3.6) or the growing phases of larger
eruptions that later reach the stratosphere (e.g., Sect. 3.2). For colder
plume temperatures between 200–220 K, the mean of the upper and lower
radiometric height solutions tends to agree best with the geometric height.
In these cases, the umbrella spreads near the tropopause. For the coldest
plumes below 200 K, which are also the tallest, the stratospheric radiometric
height solution is usually a fairly good match to the geometric height. The
dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, however, is not a particularly good predictor of the
maximum OT height. In the three instances when the side view OT height is
within the radiometric height range (index 15, 18, 19), either a still-growing or an already-collapsing OT was observed. This sampling bias is a
consequence of the OT reaching its maximum altitude in between 10 min FD
scans.</p>
      <p id="d1e2786">The same height retrievals are plotted in Fig. 15b versus the absolute value
of dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> tropospheric lapse rate derived from
the GOES-17 geometric heights and GOES-16 brightness temperatures is
comparable to the ERA5 lapse rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, the observed
BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> shows a warm bias of 10–20 K due to semitransparency and/or
subpixel effects. The cluster of points characterized by geometric heights
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km and a range of brightness temperatures between
197–207 K likely represents varying degrees of semitransparency-related warm
bias in thinning umbrellas spreading near the tropopause.</p>
      <p id="d1e2862">The overshooting tops are in apparent thermal disequilibrium, being 10–20 K
colder than the stratospheric ambient, when they are assumed to be
characterized by the minimum BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, as is usually done. In fact, the OTs
seem to cool with an effective above-tropopause lapse rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which is essentially the upper-tropospheric ERA5 lapse rate; however, the sample
number is small and the height–temperature correlation is poor (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). It
might be better to characterize OTs by the maximum BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, provided a
well-defined local maximum such as a central warm spot within a cold ring
can be identified in the plume. This is not always the case and the OT
location might not even coincide with either the minimum or the maximum
plume temperature. Additional complicating factors include decompression
cooling and brightness temperature biases due to semitransparency and/or
subpixel effects. The nontrivial problem of linking OTs to the complex and
rapidly changing temperature structure of volcanic plumes is deferred to a
later study, which can take advantage of the 1 min sampling offered by
the MESO2 scans.</p>
      <p id="d1e2915">In a final summary, Fig. 16 plots the GOES-17 side view height against the
best-match temperature-based height. For relatively warm tropospheric
eruption columns, the single radiometric height underestimates the geometric
height by 2–3 km with an overall low bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km. For umbrellas spreading
near the tropopause, the mean of the radiometric height solutions is a
reasonable approximation to the geometric height, typically within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km and with an overall high bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km. For the coldest and tallest
umbrellas, the temperature-based stratospheric height agrees well with the
geometric height, showing deviations within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km and an overall
high bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km. Such a good agreement suggests only small biases
(thermal disequilibrium, semitransparency and/or subpixel effects) in the
brightness temperature measured in optically thick, opaque, and non-violently
spreading plumes. However, the stratospheric height solution corresponding
to the dark pixel temperature always underestimates the maximum OT height by
up to 5 km, with an overall low bias of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km in our dataset.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16"><?xmltex \currentcnt{16}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 16</label><caption><p id="d1e2982">GOES-17 side view height versus the best-match GOES-16
temperature-based height. The GOES-17 OT height is plotted against the
GOES-16 maximum (stratospheric) height solution. The dashed line is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
line.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f16.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3003">Because the atmospheric temperature structure showed little diurnal or
day-to-day variation during the entire eruptive period (see Fig. 4), the
results from the above comparison of daytime height retrievals might also be
useful to “calibrate” the temperature-based height estimates for the
numerous nighttime eruptions. The nighttime dark pixel brightness
temperatures can be classified into one of three categories found for the
daytime cases (BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">220</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K, 200 K <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">220</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K, or BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K) to select the corresponding
bias-corrected best-match (min, mean, or max) radiometric height solutions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Comparison with the April 1979 eruptions</title>
      <p id="d1e3068">Noting the similarities in measurement techniques, atmospheric conditions,
and eruption heights, we briefly review La Soufrière's last major
eruptions, which occurred between 13–25 April 1979, the most intense one occurring on
17 April. The atmospheric temperature profile resembled the current case,
with a cold point tropopause of 193 K between 16.2–17.0 km (Barr and Heffter,
1982). The plumes were fairly well observed by both aircraft and satellite.
In a direct analogue to our method, the height of the large plume on 17 April was determined from a side view photograph taken by an aircraft 6 min after the explosion from a distance of 104 km. The estimates yielded
a plume top at 18–20 km altitude (Fiske and Sigurdsson, 1982). Airborne
lidar measurements collected between 17–19 April detected distinct
stratospheric ash layers at 16, 17, 18, and 19.5 km (Fuller et al., 1982).
Height estimates for 17 April were also obtained from 11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> brightness
temperatures from the SMS-1 (Synchronous Meteorological Satellite-1)
geostationary satellite located at 70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, which indicated a
stratospheric plume at 18 km altitude (Krueger, 1982). Maximum plume heights
generally varied between 10–20 km during the entire eruption period.
Overall, the observed plume heights of the 1979 and the current series of
eruptions were very similar, suggesting a comparable level of activity.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Summary</title>
      <p id="d1e3100">We presented daytime plume height estimates for the April 2021 La
Soufrière eruptions obtained from GOES-17 side views and GOES-16–MODIS
stereo views. Our side view estimates indicated that only a couple of
eruptions remained fully in the troposphere, typically between 6–14 km. Most
of the plumes, however, either spread at the tropopause near 16–17 km or
penetrated the lower stratosphere, reaching altitudes between 18–20 km.
Overshooting tops at up to 23 km altitude were also observed in the largest
explosions. The independent stereo retrievals for the Terra and Aqua
overpasses on 10 April also showed maximum plume heights of 23 km and a main
spreading layer of 18–21 km, confirming the side view results. By the time
the visible ash cloud reached Barbados, its altitude had decreased to 16–17 km.
We note that the plume heights measured during the current eruptions were
very similar to the ones observed during the volcano's last major eruptions
in April 1979.</p>
      <p id="d1e3103">The geometric heights were compared to the radiometric height or height
range corresponding to the measured dark pixel plume temperature (minimum
BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). For smaller eruption columns, the single radiometric height
underestimated the geometric height by a couple of kilometers due to a warm
bias of 10–20 K, caused mostly by subpixel effects. For plumes spreading
near the tropopause, the midpoint of the radiometric height range was a
reasonable approximation to the geometric height. This was so because, for
the tropical temperature profile of La Soufrière, the average of the
upper and lower radiometric height solutions is near the tropopause as the
tropospheric and stratospheric lapse rates are of opposite sign but
comparable magnitude. The methods were most consistent in the coldest
umbrellas, where the upper bound of the radiometric height range
(stratospheric solution) agreed well with the geometric height, indicating
small brightness temperature biases in the optically thickest plumes. These
three plume classes were fairly well separated by brightness temperature
thresholds; thus, the daytime height comparison results could be used to
“calibrate” and bias correct the nighttime radiometric height retrievals.</p>
      <p id="d1e3115">Although the side view method was originally developed for the highest
resolution visible red band images, we have shown in the current work that,
depending on the channel and atmospheric conditions, plume heights can also be
estimated from IR side views, albeit with larger uncertainty (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km
per <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> pixel). Due to increased water vapor absorption along the long
view path, plume detection in IR side views typically works only above
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km; however, in dry and clear atmospheres, smaller plumes
can occasionally be identified too. These results suggest that the side view
technique can provide useful complementary height retrievals during nighttime, especially for larger plumes.</p>
      <p id="d1e3148">On a final note, we believe that obtaining higher-frequency side view
imagery of a volcanic eruption near the limb of the GOES-R earth scan would
be beneficial in the future. The full disk oblique imagery used in the
current study only offers 10 min of sampling; however, positioning an ABI
MESO domain over a near-limb volcano would provide 1 min of side view
imaging. The improved temporal sampling of a rapidly rising eruption column
would allow the maximum height attained by the plume to be better captured and
would also provide unique data for the study of volcanic jet dynamics,
comparable to the side view imagery obtained in laboratory water tank
experiments on particle-laden jets (Gilchrist and Jellinek, 2021).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Comparison with CALIOP profiles on 10~April, 06:25--06:26\,UTC}?><title>Comparison with CALIOP profiles on 10 April, 06:25–06:26 UTC</title>
      <p id="d1e3163">Here we analyze the track that passed closest to the volcano
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km east of La Soufrière) on 10 April between
06:25–06:26 UTC (level 1 data file CAL_LID_L1-Standard-V4-11.2021-04-10T06-10-21ZN.hdf). This nighttime (descending)
track is overlaid on the 06:30 UTC GOES-16 BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> image in Fig. A1a, and
the corresponding 532 nm total attenuated backscatter profiles are plotted in
Fig. A1b. As shown, there was a stratospheric layer stretching between
12.0–14.1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and reaching heights up to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F17" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e3206"><bold>(a)</bold> GOES-16 BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the plume on 10 April 2021 at 06:30 UTC. The black line is the CALIPSO orbit track with 10 specific
points marked by orange dots. The black triangle is the volcano and the
black star is the coldest plume pixel. <bold>(b)</bold> CALIOP total attenuated
backscatter at 532 nm. The white line is the tropopause, and the circles,
crosses, and squares respectively depict the minimum, mean, and maximum
plume heights corresponding to the BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at the 10 orange track points
in panel <bold>(a)</bold>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12311/2022/acp-22-12311-2022-f17.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3241">These lidar layer heights are consistent with preceding nighttime eruption
heights derived from the dark pixel BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and calibrated by the daytime
geometric–radiometric height comparison discussed in Sect. 4.1. There
were nine nighttime eruptions on 10 April before 06:25 UTC. The last one
prior to the CALIPSO overpass occurred between 05:20–05:40 UTC and had dark
pixel plume temperatures of 194.2–197.0 K. Using the “calibration” in Fig. 16, these temperatures correspond to best-match (stratospheric) radiometric
heights of 18.1–18.9 km. The coldest plume temperature in the 06:30 UTC
GOES-16 image was 193.8 K, resulting in a “calibrated” radiometric height of
17.9 km; again, in good agreement with the lidar heights.</p>
      <p id="d1e3254">The general comparison between radiometric and lidar heights shows strong
similarities with the comparison between radiometric and side view heights.
Figure A1b reveals a complex vertical structure of multiple cloud and ash
layers, the higher of which are likely often semitransparent. A BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">220</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K yields a single radiometric height that is either in
between layers or represents a lower optically dominant layer. For 220 K
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> BT<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 K (13.12 and
13.42<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N), the mean of the stratospheric and tropospheric
radiometric height solutions is in reasonable agreement with the
near-tropopause lidar height.</p>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e3313">The GOES-R ABI L1B radiances are available from the NOAA Comprehensive
Large Array-data Stewardship System (CLASS) archive
(<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7289/V5BV7DSR" ext-link-type="DOI">10.7289/V5BV7DSR</ext-link>, GOES-R Calibration Working Group and
GOES-R Series Program, 2017). There are no restrictions on the use of GOES-R
data (<uri>https://registry.opendata.aws/noaa-goes/</uri>, last access: 16 September 2022). The CALIPSO Lidar Level 1
Version 4.11 Data Product is available free of charge from the NASA Langley
Research Center Atmospheric Science Data Center
(<uri>https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/data/CALIPSO/LID_L1-Standard-V4-11/</uri>, last access: 16 September 2022). The lidar profiles were plotted with the open source
command-line program ccplot, available at <uri>https://ccplot.org</uri> (last access: 16 September 2022). The open-source image-processing package Fiji is available at
<uri>https://imagej.net/software/fiji</uri> (last access: 6 April 2022).</p>

      <p id="d1e3331">The 3D Winds stereo retrievals and all mentioned animations are available in
the Supplement.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e3334">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12311-2022-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12311-2022-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e3343">ÁH developed the idea and methodology of the side view retrievals
during discussions with GAH and SAB. Retrievals from the 3D Winds stereo
code were provided by its developers JLC and DLW. ÁH and JB analyzed the
results. ÁH prepared the manuscript with significant contributions from
all authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e3349">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e3355">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3361">Ákos Horváth, Julia Bruckert, Gholam Ali Hoshyaripour, and Stefan A.
Buehler are members of the VolPlume project within the
research unit VolImpact funded by the German Research Foundation DFG (FOR
2820). This work also contributes to the Cluster of Excellence
“CLICCS – Climate, Climatic Change, and Society” funded by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (EXC 2037, project number 390683824), and to the
Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN) of Universität
Hamburg.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3366">This research has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant nos. FOR 2820 and EXC 2037, Project Number 390683824).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3372">This paper was edited by Rolf Müller and reviewed by Michael Fromm and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Babu, S. R., Nguyen, L. S. P., Sheu, G.-R., Griffith, S. M., Pani, S. K.,
Huang, H.-Y., and Lin, N.-H.: Long-range transport of La Soufrière
volcanic plume to the western North Pacific: Influence on atmospheric
mercury and aerosol properties, Atmos. Environ., 268, 118806,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118806" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118806</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Barr, S. and Heffter, J. L.: Meteorological analysis of the eruption of
Soufriere in April 1979, Science, 216, 1109–1111,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1109" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.216.4550.1109</ext-link>, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Carr, J. L., Wu, D. L., Wolfe, R. E., Madani, H., Lin, G. G., and Tan, B.:
Joint 3D-wind retrievals with stereoscopic views from MODIS and GOES, Remote
Sens., 11, 2100, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11182100" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs11182100</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Carr, J. L., Wu, D. L., Daniels, J., Friberg, M. D., Bresky, W., and Madani,
H.: GEO–GEO stereo-tracking of Atmospheric Motion Vectors (AMVs) from the
geostationary ring, Remote Sens., 12, 3779,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223779" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs12223779</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Carr, J. L., Horváth, Á., Wu, D. L., and Friberg, M. D.: Stereo
plume height and motion retrievals for the record-setting Hunga Tonga-Hunga
Ha'apai eruption of 15 January 2022, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098131,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098131" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2022GL098131</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>de Michele, M., Raucoules, D., Corradini, S., Merucci, L., Salerno, G.,
Sellitto, P., and Carboni, E.: Volcanic cloud top height estimation using
the plume elevation model procedure applied to orthorectified Landsat 8
data. Test case: 26 October 2013 Mt. Etna eruption, Remote Sens., 11, 785,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070785" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs11070785</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fiske, R. S. and Sigurdsson, H.: Soufriere volcano, St. Vincent:
Observations of its 1979 eruption from the ground, aircraft, and satellites,
Science, 216, 1105–1106, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1105" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.216.4550.1105</ext-link>,
1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fuller, W. H., Sokol, S., and Hunt, W. H.: Airborne lidar measurements of
the Soufriere eruption of 17 April 1979, Science, 216, 1113–1115,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1113" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.216.4550.1113</ext-link>, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garfinkel, B.: Astronomical refraction in a polytropic atmosphere, Astron.
J., 72, 235–254, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1086/110225" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1086/110225</ext-link>, 1967.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gilchrist, J. T. and Jellinek, A. M.: Sediment waves and the gravitational
stability of volcanic jets, Bull. Volcanol., 83, 64,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-021-01472-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00445-021-01472-1</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Global Volcanism Program: Volcanoes of the World, v. 4.9.0 (4 June 2020),
edited by: Venzke, E, Smithsonian Institution,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.VOTW4-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5479/si.GVP.VOTW4-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Global Volcanism Program: Report on Soufriere St. Vincent (Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines), edited by: Bennis, K. L. and Venzke, E., Bulletin of the
Global Volcanism Network, 46, 5, Smithsonian Institution,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.BGVN202105-360150" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5479/si.GVP.BGVN202105-360150</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>GOES-R Calibration Working Group and GOES-R Series Program: NOAA GOES-R
Series Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) Level 1b Radiances, NOAA National
Centers for Environmental Information [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7289/V5BV7DSR" ext-link-type="DOI">10.7289/V5BV7DSR</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J. N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis,
Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3803</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Horváth, Á., Carr, J. L., Girina, O. A., Wu, D. L., Bril, A. A., Mazurov, A. A., Melnikov, D. V., Hoshyaripour, G. A., and Buehler, S. A.: Geometric estimation of volcanic eruption column height from GOES-R near-limb imagery – Part 1: Methodology, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 12189–12206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12189-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-12189-2021</ext-link>, 2021a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Horváth, Á., Girina, O. A., Carr, J. L., Wu, D. L., Bril, A. A., Mazurov, A. A., Melnikov, D. V., Hoshyaripour, G. A., and Buehler, S. A.: Geometric estimation of volcanic eruption column height from GOES-R near-limb imagery – Part 2: Case studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 12207–12226, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12207-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-12207-2021</ext-link>, 2021b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kalluri, S., Alcala, C., Carr, J., Griffith, P., Lebair, W., Lindsey, D.,
Race, R., Wu, X., and Zierk, S.: From photons to pixels: Processing data
from the Advanced Baseline Imager, Remote Sens., 10, 177,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020177" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs10020177</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Krueger, A. F.: Geostationary satellite observations of the April 1979
Soufriere eruptions, Science, 216, 1108–1109,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1108" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.216.4550.1108</ext-link>, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kumari, B. P., Kulkarni, S. H., Jadhav, D. B., Londhe, A. L., and Trimbake,
H. K.: Exploring atmospheric aerosols by twilight photometry, J. Atmos.
Ocean. Tech., 25, 1600–1607, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1090.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JTECHA1090.1</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McCorkel, J., Van Naarden, J., Lindsey, D., Efremova, B., Coakley, M.,
Black, M., and Krimchansky, A.: GOES-17 Advanced Baseline Imager performance
recovery summary, in: Proc. IGARSS 2019 – IEEE Int. Geosci. and Remote
Sens. Symp., <uri>https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190028689</uri>
(last access: 6 April 2022), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mitra, A., Di Girolamo, L., Hong, Y., Zhan, Y., and Mueller, K. J.:
Assessment and error analysis of Terra-MODIS and MISR cloud-top heights
through comparison with ISS-CATS lidar, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126,
e2020JD034281, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020JD034281</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oppenheimer, C.: Review article: Volcanological applications of
meteorological satellites, Int. J. Remote Sens., 19, 2829–2864,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/014311698214307" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/014311698214307</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Prata, A. J. and Grant, I. F.: Retrieval of microphysical and morphological
properties of volcanic ash plumes from satellite data: Application to Mt
Ruapehu, New Zealand, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 2153–2179,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757615" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49712757615</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schaefer, B. E. and Liller, W.: Refraction near the horizon, Publ. Astron.
Soc. Pac., 102, 796–805, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1086/132705" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1086/132705</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schindelin, J., Arganda-Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M.,
Pietzsch, T., Preibisch, S., Rueden, C., Saalfeld, S., Schmid, B., Tinevez,
J. Y., White, D. J., Hartenstein, V., Eliceiri, K., Tomancak, P., and
Cardona, A.: Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis,
Nat. Methods, 9, 676–682, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nmeth.2019</ext-link>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Setvák, M., Bedka, K., Lindsey, D. T., Sokol, A., Charvát, Z.,
Šťástka, J., and Wang, P. K.: A-Train observations of deep
convective storm tops, Atmos. Res., 123, 229–248,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.06.020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.06.020</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Taylor, M. J., Hapgood, M., and Simmons, D. A.: The effect of atmospheric
screening on the visible border of noctilucent clouds, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr.
Phy., 46, 363–372, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(84)90121-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0021-9169(84)90121-1</ext-link>, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thomas, G. and Siddans, R.: Follow-on to the Inter-comparison of
Satellite-based Volcanic Ash Retrieval Algorithms in Support to
SCOPE-Nowcasting Final report Version 1.0, EUM/C0/18/4600002135/RM, RAL
Space Ref: STDA01188, 36 pp., <uri>https://www.eumetsat.int/media/44311</uri> (last access: 6 April 2022), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Young, A. T.: Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction, Astron. J., 127,
3622–3637, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1086/420806" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1086/420806</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Measurement report: Plume heights of the April 2021 La Soufrière eruptions from GOES-17 side views and GOES-16–MODIS stereo views</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Babu, S. R., Nguyen, L. S. P., Sheu, G.-R., Griffith, S. M., Pani, S. K.,
Huang, H.-Y., and Lin, N.-H.: Long-range transport of La Soufrière
volcanic plume to the western North Pacific: Influence on atmospheric
mercury and aerosol properties, Atmos. Environ., 268, 118806,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118806" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118806</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Barr, S. and Heffter, J. L.: Meteorological analysis of the eruption of
Soufriere in April 1979, Science, 216, 1109–1111,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1109" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1109</a>, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Carr, J. L., Wu, D. L., Wolfe, R. E., Madani, H., Lin, G. G., and Tan, B.:
Joint 3D-wind retrievals with stereoscopic views from MODIS and GOES, Remote
Sens., 11, 2100, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11182100" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11182100</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Carr, J. L., Wu, D. L., Daniels, J., Friberg, M. D., Bresky, W., and Madani,
H.: GEO–GEO stereo-tracking of Atmospheric Motion Vectors (AMVs) from the
geostationary ring, Remote Sens., 12, 3779,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223779" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223779</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Carr, J. L., Horváth, Á., Wu, D. L., and Friberg, M. D.: Stereo
plume height and motion retrievals for the record-setting Hunga Tonga-Hunga
Ha'apai eruption of 15 January 2022, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098131,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098131" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098131</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
de Michele, M., Raucoules, D., Corradini, S., Merucci, L., Salerno, G.,
Sellitto, P., and Carboni, E.: Volcanic cloud top height estimation using
the plume elevation model procedure applied to orthorectified Landsat 8
data. Test case: 26 October 2013 Mt. Etna eruption, Remote Sens., 11, 785,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070785" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070785</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Fiske, R. S. and Sigurdsson, H.: Soufriere volcano, St. Vincent:
Observations of its 1979 eruption from the ground, aircraft, and satellites,
Science, 216, 1105–1106, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1105" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1105</a>,
1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Fuller, W. H., Sokol, S., and Hunt, W. H.: Airborne lidar measurements of
the Soufriere eruption of 17 April 1979, Science, 216, 1113–1115,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1113" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1113</a>, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Garfinkel, B.: Astronomical refraction in a polytropic atmosphere, Astron.
J., 72, 235–254, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/110225" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1086/110225</a>, 1967.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Gilchrist, J. T. and Jellinek, A. M.: Sediment waves and the gravitational
stability of volcanic jets, Bull. Volcanol., 83, 64,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-021-01472-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-021-01472-1</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Global Volcanism Program: Volcanoes of the World, v. 4.9.0 (4 June 2020),
edited by: Venzke, E, Smithsonian Institution,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.VOTW4-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.VOTW4-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Global Volcanism Program: Report on Soufriere St. Vincent (Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines), edited by: Bennis, K. L. and Venzke, E., Bulletin of the
Global Volcanism Network, 46, 5, Smithsonian Institution,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.BGVN202105-360150" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5479/si.GVP.BGVN202105-360150</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
GOES-R Calibration Working Group and GOES-R Series Program: NOAA GOES-R
Series Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) Level 1b Radiances, NOAA National
Centers for Environmental Information [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.7289/V5BV7DSR" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.7289/V5BV7DSR</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J. N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis,
Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803</a>,
2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Horváth, Á., Carr, J. L., Girina, O. A., Wu, D. L., Bril, A. A., Mazurov, A. A., Melnikov, D. V., Hoshyaripour, G. A., and Buehler, S. A.: Geometric estimation of volcanic eruption column height from GOES-R near-limb imagery – Part 1: Methodology, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 12189–12206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12189-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12189-2021</a>, 2021a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Horváth, Á., Girina, O. A., Carr, J. L., Wu, D. L., Bril, A. A., Mazurov, A. A., Melnikov, D. V., Hoshyaripour, G. A., and Buehler, S. A.: Geometric estimation of volcanic eruption column height from GOES-R near-limb imagery – Part 2: Case studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 12207–12226, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12207-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-12207-2021</a>, 2021b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Kalluri, S., Alcala, C., Carr, J., Griffith, P., Lebair, W., Lindsey, D.,
Race, R., Wu, X., and Zierk, S.: From photons to pixels: Processing data
from the Advanced Baseline Imager, Remote Sens., 10, 177,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020177" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020177</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Krueger, A. F.: Geostationary satellite observations of the April 1979
Soufriere eruptions, Science, 216, 1108–1109,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1108" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.216.4550.1108</a>, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Kumari, B. P., Kulkarni, S. H., Jadhav, D. B., Londhe, A. L., and Trimbake,
H. K.: Exploring atmospheric aerosols by twilight photometry, J. Atmos.
Ocean. Tech., 25, 1600–1607, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1090.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA1090.1</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
McCorkel, J., Van Naarden, J., Lindsey, D., Efremova, B., Coakley, M.,
Black, M., and Krimchansky, A.: GOES-17 Advanced Baseline Imager performance
recovery summary, in: Proc. IGARSS 2019 – IEEE Int. Geosci. and Remote
Sens. Symp., <a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190028689" target="_blank"/>
(last access: 6 April 2022), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Mitra, A., Di Girolamo, L., Hong, Y., Zhan, Y., and Mueller, K. J.:
Assessment and error analysis of Terra-MODIS and MISR cloud-top heights
through comparison with ISS-CATS lidar, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126,
e2020JD034281, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034281" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034281</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Oppenheimer, C.: Review article: Volcanological applications of
meteorological satellites, Int. J. Remote Sens., 19, 2829–2864,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/014311698214307" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/014311698214307</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Prata, A. J. and Grant, I. F.: Retrieval of microphysical and morphological
properties of volcanic ash plumes from satellite data: Application to Mt
Ruapehu, New Zealand, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 2153–2179,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757615" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712757615</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Schaefer, B. E. and Liller, W.: Refraction near the horizon, Publ. Astron.
Soc. Pac., 102, 796–805, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/132705" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1086/132705</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Schindelin, J., Arganda-Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M.,
Pietzsch, T., Preibisch, S., Rueden, C., Saalfeld, S., Schmid, B., Tinevez,
J. Y., White, D. J., Hartenstein, V., Eliceiri, K., Tomancak, P., and
Cardona, A.: Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis,
Nat. Methods, 9, 676–682, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019</a>, 2012.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Setvák, M., Bedka, K., Lindsey, D. T., Sokol, A., Charvát, Z.,
Šťástka, J., and Wang, P. K.: A-Train observations of deep
convective storm tops, Atmos. Res., 123, 229–248,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.06.020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.06.020</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Taylor, M. J., Hapgood, M., and Simmons, D. A.: The effect of atmospheric
screening on the visible border of noctilucent clouds, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr.
Phy., 46, 363–372, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(84)90121-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(84)90121-1</a>, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Thomas, G. and Siddans, R.: Follow-on to the Inter-comparison of
Satellite-based Volcanic Ash Retrieval Algorithms in Support to
SCOPE-Nowcasting Final report Version 1.0, EUM/C0/18/4600002135/RM, RAL
Space Ref: STDA01188, 36 pp., <a href="https://www.eumetsat.int/media/44311" target="_blank"/> (last access: 6 April 2022), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Young, A. T.: Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction, Astron. J., 127,
3622–3637, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/420806" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1086/420806</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
