Comparison of aerosol backscatter and wind field estimates from the REAL and the SAMPLE

Although operating at the same near-infrared 1.5-m wavelength, the Raman-shifted Eye-safe Aerosol Lidar (REAL) and the Scanning Aerosol Micro-Pulse Lidar-Eye-safe (SAMPLE) are very different in how they generate and detect laser radiation. We present results from an experiment where the REAL and the SAMPLE were operated side-by-side in Chico, California, in March of 2015. During the non-continuous, eleven day test period, the SAMPLE instrument was operated at maximum pulse repetition frequency (15 kHz) and integrated over the interpulse period of the REAL (0.1 s). Operation at the high pulse repetition frequency resulted in second trip echoes which contaminated portions of the data. The performance of the SAMPLE instrument varied with background brightness-as expected with a photon counting receiver|-yet showed equal or larger backscatter intensity signal to noise ratio throughout the intercomparison experiment. We show that a modest low-pass filter or smooth applied to the REAL raw waveforms (that have 5x higher range resolution) results in significant increases in raw signal-to-noise ratio and image signal-to-noise ratio-a measure of coherent aerosol feature content in the images resulting from the scans. Examples of wind fields and time series of wind estimates from both systems are presented. We conclude by reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of each system and sketch a plan for future research and development activities to optimize the design of future systems.