Open Access
Issue
EPJ Web Conf.
Volume 237, 2020
The 29th International Laser Radar Conference (ILRC 29)
Article Number 08026
Number of page(s) 4
Section Lidar Data Analysis and Models
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202023708026
Published online 07 July 2020
  1. Balis, D., Koukouli, M.-E., Siomos, N., Dimopoulos, S., Mona, L., Pappalardo, G., Marenco, F., Clarisse, L., Ventress, L. J., Carboni, E., Grainger, R. G., Wang, P., Tilstra, G., van der A, R., Theys, N., and Zehner, C.: Validation of ash optical depth and layer height retrieved from passive satellite sensors using EARLINET and airborne lidar data: the case of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5705-5720, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5705-2016, 2016 [Google Scholar]
  2. Pappalardo, G., Amodeo, A., Apituley, A., Comeron, A., Freudenthaler, V., Linné, H., Ansmann, A., Bösenberg, J., D’Amico, G., Mattis, I., Mona, L., Wandinger, U., Amiridis, V., Alados-Arboledas, L., Nicolae, D., and Wiegner, M.: EARLINET: towards an advanced sustainable European aerosol lidar network, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 2389-2409, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2389-2014, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hassinen, S., Balis, D., Bauer, H., Begoin, M., Delcloo, A., Eleftheratos, K., Gimeno Garcia, S., Granville, J., Grossi, M., Hao, N., Hedelt, P., Hendrick, F., Hess, M., Heue, K.-P., Hovila, J., Jønch-Sørensen, H., Kalakoski, N., Kauppi, A., Kiemle, S., Kins, L., Koukouli, M. E., Kujanpää, J., Lambert, J.-C., Lang, R., Lerot, C., Loyola, D., Pedergnana, M., Pinardi, G., Romahn, F., van Roozendael, M., Lutz, R., De Smedt, I., Stammes, P., Steinbrecht, W., Tamminen, J., Theys, N., Tilstra, L. G., Tuinder, O. N. E., Valks, P., Zerefos, C., Zimmer, W., and Zyrichidou, I.: Overview of the O3M SAF GOME-2 operational atmospheric composition and UV radiation data products and data availability, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 383-407, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-383-2016, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Siomos, N., Balis, D. S., Voudouri, K. A., Giannakaki, E., Filioglou, M., Amiridis, V., Papayannis, A., and Fragkos, K.: Are EARLINET and AERONET climatologies consistent? The case of Thessaloniki, Greece, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11885-11903, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11885-2018, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. M. de Graaf, P. Stammes, O. Torres, and R.B.A. Koelemeijer, Absorbing Aerosol Index: Sensitivity analysis, application to GOME and comparison with TOMS, J. Geophys. Res. 110, D010201, doi:10.1029/2004JD005178, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tilstra, L. G., O. N. E. Tuinder, and P. Stammes (2010), GOME-2 Absorbing Aerosol Index: statistical analysis, comparison to GOME-1 and impact of instrument degradation, in Proceedings of the 2010 EUMETSAT Meteorological Satellite Conference, EUMETSAT P.57, ISBN 978-92-9110-089-7, Cordoba, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tuinder, O. N. E. and L. G. Tilstra (2016), Near Real-Time, Offline and Data Set Aerosol Products – Product User Manual, Doc. No. O3MSAF/KNMI/PUM/002, Issue 1.61, 11 January 2016, KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wang, P., O. N. E. Tuinder, L. G. Tilstra, M. de Graaf, and P. Stammes (2012), Interpretation of FRESCO cloud retrievals in case of absorbing aerosol events, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12(19), 9057–9077, doi:10.5194/acp-12-9057-2012. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.