Using in situ airborne measurements to evaluate three cloud phase products derived from CALIPSO

G. Cesana, H. Chepfer, D. Winker, B. Getzewich, X. Cai, O. Jourdan, G. Mioche, H. Okamoto, Y. Hagihara, V. Noel, M. Reverdy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compare the cloud detection and cloud phase determination of three independent climatologies based on Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) to airborne in situ measurements. Our analysis of the cloud detection shows that the differences between the satellite and in situ measurements mainly arise from three factors. First, averaging CALIPSO Level l data along track before cloud detection increases the estimate of high- and low-level cloud fractions. Second, the vertical averaging of Level 1 data before cloud detection tends to artificially increase the cloud vertical extent. Third, the differences in classification of fully attenuated pixels among the CALIPSO climatologies lead to differences in the low-level Arctic cloud fractions. In another section, we compare the cloudy pixels detected by colocated in situ and satellite observations to study the cloud phase determination. At midlatitudes, retrievals of homogeneous high ice clouds by CALIPSO data sets are very robust (more than 94.6% of agreement with in situ). In the Arctic, where the cloud phase vertical variability is larger within a 480m pixel, all climatologies show disagreements with the in situ measurements and CALIPSO-General Circulation Models-Oriented Cloud Product (GOCCP) report significant undefined-phase clouds, which likely correspond to mixed-phase clouds. In all CALIPSO products, the phase determination is dominated by the cloud top phase. Finally, we use global statistics to demonstrate that main differences between the CALIPSO cloud phase products stem from the cloud detection (horizontal averaging, fully attenuated pixels) rather than the cloud phase determination procedures.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)5788-5808
Number of pages21
JournalJournal of Geophysical Research
Volume121
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

CALIPSO
lidar
satellite observation
Optical radar
aerosols
Aerosols
optical radar
Satellites
Infrared radiation
products
Pixels
Arctic region
pixel
in situ measurement
product
in situ
General Circulation Models
pixels
Ice
ice

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Geophysics
  • Forestry
  • Oceanography
  • Aquatic Science
  • Ecology
  • Water Science and Technology
  • Soil Science
  • Geochemistry and Petrology
  • Earth-Surface Processes
  • Atmospheric Science
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Space and Planetary Science
  • Palaeontology

Cite this

Cesana, G., Chepfer, H., Winker, D., Getzewich, B., Cai, X., Jourdan, O., ... Reverdy, M. (2016). Using in situ airborne measurements to evaluate three cloud phase products derived from CALIPSO. Journal of Geophysical Research, 121(10), 5788-5808. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024334

Using in situ airborne measurements to evaluate three cloud phase products derived from CALIPSO. / Cesana, G.; Chepfer, H.; Winker, D.; Getzewich, B.; Cai, X.; Jourdan, O.; Mioche, G.; Okamoto, H.; Hagihara, Y.; Noel, V.; Reverdy, M.

In: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 121, No. 10, 01.01.2016, p. 5788-5808.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cesana, G, Chepfer, H, Winker, D, Getzewich, B, Cai, X, Jourdan, O, Mioche, G, Okamoto, H, Hagihara, Y, Noel, V & Reverdy, M 2016, 'Using in situ airborne measurements to evaluate three cloud phase products derived from CALIPSO', Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 5788-5808. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024334
Cesana, G. ; Chepfer, H. ; Winker, D. ; Getzewich, B. ; Cai, X. ; Jourdan, O. ; Mioche, G. ; Okamoto, H. ; Hagihara, Y. ; Noel, V. ; Reverdy, M. / Using in situ airborne measurements to evaluate three cloud phase products derived from CALIPSO. In: Journal of Geophysical Research. 2016 ; Vol. 121, No. 10. pp. 5788-5808.
@article{f4677d64f7524cfea2bbdeba0e4af3eb,
title = "Using in situ airborne measurements to evaluate three cloud phase products derived from CALIPSO",
abstract = "We compare the cloud detection and cloud phase determination of three independent climatologies based on Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) to airborne in situ measurements. Our analysis of the cloud detection shows that the differences between the satellite and in situ measurements mainly arise from three factors. First, averaging CALIPSO Level l data along track before cloud detection increases the estimate of high- and low-level cloud fractions. Second, the vertical averaging of Level 1 data before cloud detection tends to artificially increase the cloud vertical extent. Third, the differences in classification of fully attenuated pixels among the CALIPSO climatologies lead to differences in the low-level Arctic cloud fractions. In another section, we compare the cloudy pixels detected by colocated in situ and satellite observations to study the cloud phase determination. At midlatitudes, retrievals of homogeneous high ice clouds by CALIPSO data sets are very robust (more than 94.6{\%} of agreement with in situ). In the Arctic, where the cloud phase vertical variability is larger within a 480m pixel, all climatologies show disagreements with the in situ measurements and CALIPSO-General Circulation Models-Oriented Cloud Product (GOCCP) report significant undefined-phase clouds, which likely correspond to mixed-phase clouds. In all CALIPSO products, the phase determination is dominated by the cloud top phase. Finally, we use global statistics to demonstrate that main differences between the CALIPSO cloud phase products stem from the cloud detection (horizontal averaging, fully attenuated pixels) rather than the cloud phase determination procedures.",
author = "G. Cesana and H. Chepfer and D. Winker and B. Getzewich and X. Cai and O. Jourdan and G. Mioche and H. Okamoto and Y. Hagihara and V. Noel and M. Reverdy",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/2015JD024334",
language = "English",
volume = "121",
pages = "5788--5808",
journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research",
issn = "0148-0227",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using in situ airborne measurements to evaluate three cloud phase products derived from CALIPSO

AU - Cesana, G.

AU - Chepfer, H.

AU - Winker, D.

AU - Getzewich, B.

AU - Cai, X.

AU - Jourdan, O.

AU - Mioche, G.

AU - Okamoto, H.

AU - Hagihara, Y.

AU - Noel, V.

AU - Reverdy, M.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - We compare the cloud detection and cloud phase determination of three independent climatologies based on Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) to airborne in situ measurements. Our analysis of the cloud detection shows that the differences between the satellite and in situ measurements mainly arise from three factors. First, averaging CALIPSO Level l data along track before cloud detection increases the estimate of high- and low-level cloud fractions. Second, the vertical averaging of Level 1 data before cloud detection tends to artificially increase the cloud vertical extent. Third, the differences in classification of fully attenuated pixels among the CALIPSO climatologies lead to differences in the low-level Arctic cloud fractions. In another section, we compare the cloudy pixels detected by colocated in situ and satellite observations to study the cloud phase determination. At midlatitudes, retrievals of homogeneous high ice clouds by CALIPSO data sets are very robust (more than 94.6% of agreement with in situ). In the Arctic, where the cloud phase vertical variability is larger within a 480m pixel, all climatologies show disagreements with the in situ measurements and CALIPSO-General Circulation Models-Oriented Cloud Product (GOCCP) report significant undefined-phase clouds, which likely correspond to mixed-phase clouds. In all CALIPSO products, the phase determination is dominated by the cloud top phase. Finally, we use global statistics to demonstrate that main differences between the CALIPSO cloud phase products stem from the cloud detection (horizontal averaging, fully attenuated pixels) rather than the cloud phase determination procedures.

AB - We compare the cloud detection and cloud phase determination of three independent climatologies based on Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) to airborne in situ measurements. Our analysis of the cloud detection shows that the differences between the satellite and in situ measurements mainly arise from three factors. First, averaging CALIPSO Level l data along track before cloud detection increases the estimate of high- and low-level cloud fractions. Second, the vertical averaging of Level 1 data before cloud detection tends to artificially increase the cloud vertical extent. Third, the differences in classification of fully attenuated pixels among the CALIPSO climatologies lead to differences in the low-level Arctic cloud fractions. In another section, we compare the cloudy pixels detected by colocated in situ and satellite observations to study the cloud phase determination. At midlatitudes, retrievals of homogeneous high ice clouds by CALIPSO data sets are very robust (more than 94.6% of agreement with in situ). In the Arctic, where the cloud phase vertical variability is larger within a 480m pixel, all climatologies show disagreements with the in situ measurements and CALIPSO-General Circulation Models-Oriented Cloud Product (GOCCP) report significant undefined-phase clouds, which likely correspond to mixed-phase clouds. In all CALIPSO products, the phase determination is dominated by the cloud top phase. Finally, we use global statistics to demonstrate that main differences between the CALIPSO cloud phase products stem from the cloud detection (horizontal averaging, fully attenuated pixels) rather than the cloud phase determination procedures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969959988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84969959988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/2015JD024334

DO - 10.1002/2015JD024334

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84969959988

VL - 121

SP - 5788

EP - 5808

JO - Journal of Geophysical Research

JF - Journal of Geophysical Research

SN - 0148-0227

IS - 10

ER -