Evaluation of night-time aerosols measurements and lunar irradiance models in the frame of the first multi-instrument nocturnal intercomparison campaign

Abstract

The first multi-instrument nocturnal aerosol optical depth (AOD) intercom-parison campaign was held at the high-mountain Iza ̃na Observatory (Tener-ife, Spain) in June 2017, involving 2-minutes synchronous measurements fromtwo different types of lunar photometers (Cimel CE318-T and Moon Preci-sion Filter Radiometer, LunarPFR) and one stellar photometer. The Robotic Lunar Observatory (ROLO) model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) was compared with the open-access ROLO Implementation for Moonphotometry Observation (RIMO) model. Results showed rather small differ-ences at Iza ̃na over a 2-month time period covering June and July, 2017(±0.01 in terms of AOD calculated by means of a day/night/day coherencetest analysis and±2 % in terms of lunar irradiance). The RIMO model hasbeen used in this field campaign to retrieve AOD from lunar photometricmeasurements. No evidence of significant differences with the Moon’s phase angle wasfound when comparing raw signals of the six Cimel photometers involved inthis field campaign.The raw signal comparison of the participating lunar photometers (Cimeland LunarPFR) performed at coincident wavelengths showed consistent mea-surements and AOD differences within their combined uncertainties at 870 nmand 675 nm. Slightly larger AOD deviations were observed at 500 nm, point-ing to some unexpected instrumental variations during the measurement pe-riod.Lunar irradiances retrieved using RIMO for phase angles varying between0◦and 75◦(full Moon to near quarter Moon) were compared to the irradi-ance variations retrieved by Cimel and LunarPFR photometers. Our resultsshowed a relative agreement within±3.5 % between the RIMO model andthe photometer-based lunar irradiances.The AOD retrieved by performing a Langley-plot calibration each nightshowed a remarkable agreement (better than 0.01) between the lunar pho-tometers. However, when applying the Lunar-Langley calibration using RIMO,AOD differences of up to 0.015 (0.040 for 500 nm) were found, with differ-ences increasing with the Moon’s phase angle. These differences are thoughtto be partly due to the uncertainties in the irradiance models, as well asinstrumental deficiencies yet to be fully understood.High AOD variability in stellar measurements was detected during thecampaign. Nevertheless, the observed AOD differences in the Cimel/stellarcomparison were within the expected combined uncertainties of these twophotometric techniques. Our results indicate that lunar photometry is amore reliable technique, especially for low aerosol loading conditions.The uncertainty analysis performed in this paper shows that the com-bined standard AOD uncertainty in lunar photometry is dependent on thecalibration technique (up to 0.014 for Langley-plot with illumination-basedcorrection, 0.012-0.022 for Lunar-Langley calibration, and up to 0.1 for the 2 Sun-Moon Gain Factor method). This analysis also corroborates that theuncertainty of the lunar irradiance model used for AOD calculation is withinthe 5-10 % expected range.This campaign has allowed us to quantify the important technical diffi-culties that still exist when routinely monitoring aerosol optical propertiesat night-time. The small AOD differences observed between the three typesof photometers involved in the campaign are only detectable under pristinesky conditions such as those found in this field campaign. Longer campaignsare necessary to understand the observed discrepancies between instrumentsas well as to provide more conclusive results about the uncertainty involvedin the lunar irradiance models