the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Mar 2026
The GSFC Lidar Observation and Validation Experiment (GLOVE) field campaign
Abstract. The Goddard Space Flight Center's Lidar Observation and Validation Experiment (GLOVE) was a field campaign conducted from January 27 to February 28, 2025, based out of NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Its main goals were to validate atmospheric data products from the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) and the Earth Cloud, Aerosol and Radiation Explorer (EarthCARE) satellite missions. The campaign utilized NASA's high-altitude Earth Resources-2 (ER-2) aircraft, equipped with four remote sensing instruments—including two lidars, a radar, and a spectrometer. GLOVE carried out eight flights totaling 40 flight hours and successfully captured seven ICESat-2 and six EarthCARE underflight segments of varying atmospheric conditions (i.e., aerosols, cirrus, and stratocumulus clouds) and surface types. The data collected during ICESat-2 underflights, especially of cirrus clouds and aerosols, offer valuable opportunities to assess the performance of both the operational and newer research-grade atmospheric ICESat-2 data products during daytime. Notably, the data from the Cloud Radar System (CRS), especially from snow-producing clouds, will play an important role in understanding the potential errors and uncertainties in EarthCARE Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) Doppler data, the first-ever radar Doppler velocity measurements from space. All GLOVE data products are publicly accessible through a NASA Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) or other free, open-access repositories. GLOVE serves as an example for conducting cost-effective and efficient airborne satellite validation campaigns.
- Preprint
(11119 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Apr 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-802', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Mar 2026 reply
Data sets
Cloud Physics Lidar Level 1 & 2 Data Products from the GLOVE Field Campaign J. Yorks et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16807221
Cloud Radar System (CRS) Radar Level 1B Data Products from the GLOVE Field Campaign M. Walker McLinden et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17179580
MODIS Airborne Simulator (MAS/eMAS) GLOVE Data K. Meyer https://doi.org/10.5067/GLOVE/EMAS/EMASL1B.002
Model code and software
IMPACTS Tools J. Finlon et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15310598
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 136 | 59 | 14 | 209 | 21 | 19 |
- HTML: 136
- PDF: 59
- XML: 14
- Total: 209
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper describes the GLOVE field campaign, the data from which will be used to validate the ICESat-2 and EarthCARE satellite Level 1 and Level 2 data products and methods. The manuscript is very well written and comprehensive in its coverage.
A particularly strong aspect of the paper is that it effectively conveys the complexity of coordinating an aircraft campaign at relatively low cost, bringing together the essential contributions from different space agencies, instrument teams, and the local campaign team.
The complementary combination of instruments benefits the payloads of both the ICESat-2 and EarthCARE missions and will, in the latter case, enable a full evaluation of synergistic retrievals (ATLID, CPR, and MSI versus CPL, CRS, and eMAS), comparing EarthCARE and aircraft-based results. The paper will serve as a comprehensive reference, with links to all datasets, supporting the many forthcoming studies on results and intercomparisons.
There are only a few minor remarks remaining:
Page 3; line 85 since October of that year (). Even though mentioned in the intro, for readability please make it since October 2018 (),
Page 5: line 141: Maybe consider adding A-LAY in the ATLID only retrievals, which provides CTH from lidar and aerosol layer descriptor. The GLOVE products should help evaluate this product very nicely.
Page 5: line 158. The validated operational EarthCARE L1 & L2a products…..
Page 7: Lines 207-212 The CPL … 2002). Double information in these sentences, please combine
Page 7 Line 218: Do you also have ICESat-2 and ATLID extinction coefficient uncertainties as reference next to the once quoted from CPL?
Page 9: Line 273: Same for the CPR Doppler and Reflectivity uncertainties in the sentence “ This performance, ….” . It would also be good to discuss the Doppler spectrum width evaluation here, as it seems the CPR is doing really well in this respect.
Table 1 ATLID resolution: 103m/500m
Table 2 CPR is oversampled at 100m resolution, maybe good to add in the vert. Res. Box
Table 4 was a bit confusing. I had to verify that it indeed gave the number count (since 1, 2 and 3 are also separately defined for Glove Objectives….and as a too fast reader it confused a bit). Suggest to change the caption into “ Targeted number of scenes for EarthCARE and ICESat-2 …..”
Table 4 and 5 are very much linked, one thing mising in Table 4 is the NPP, it would be nice to add a column for when NPP measurements can be used for validation, i.e. bonus validation, to link the two tables better.
Table 5: second row. Maybe add an EarthCARE note, even if it was just continental clear air (still good for Depol. Bias estimates).
Figure 4: Please ensure that the color scheme is accessible to individuals with color vision deficiencies, as I am not able to assess this myself but have the feeling that this may be an issue (maybe also Fig 3).
Figure 8: shown is a figure of the ATLID Co-polar Mie channel ATB, please update caption