Bayesian cloud-top phase determination for Meteosat Second Generation

被引:1
|
作者
Mayer, Johanna [1 ]
Bugliaro, Luca [1 ]
Mayer, Bernhard [1 ,2 ]
Piontek, Dennis [1 ]
Voigt, Christiane [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Inst Phys Atmosphare, Deutsch Zentrum Luft & Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
[2] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Meteorol Inst, Munich, Germany
[3] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Inst Phys Atmosphare, Mainz, Germany
关键词
SUPERCOOLED LIQUID WATER; LOW-LEVEL CLOUDS; MIXED-PHASE; OPTICAL-THICKNESS; SATELLITE; ALGORITHM; MISSION; IMAGERY; LIDAR; ICE;
D O I
10.5194/amt-17-4015-2024
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
A comprehensive understanding of the cloud thermodynamic phase is crucial for assessing the cloud radiative effect and is a prerequisite for remote sensing retrievals of microphysical cloud properties. While previous algorithms mainly detected ice and liquid phases, there is now a growing awareness for the need to further distinguish between warm liquid, supercooled and mixed-phase clouds. To address this need, we introduce a novel method named ProPS (PRObabilistic cloud top Phase retrieval for SEVIRI), which enables cloud detection and the determination of cloud-top phase using SEVIRI (Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager), the geostationary passive imager aboard Meteosat Second Generation. ProPS discriminates between clear sky, optically thin ice (TI) cloud, optically thick ice (IC) cloud, mixed-phase (MP) cloud, supercooled liquid (SC) cloud and warm liquid (LQ) cloud. Our method uses a Bayesian approach based on the cloud mask and cloud phase from the lidar-radar cloud product DARDAR (liDAR/raDAR). The validation of ProPS using 6 months of independent DARDAR data shows promising results: the daytime algorithm successfully detects 93 % of clouds and 86 % of clear-sky pixels. In addition, for phase determination, ProPS accurately classifies 91 % of IC, 78 % of TI, 52 % of MP, 58 % of SC and 86 % of LQ clouds, providing a significant improvement in accurate cloud-top phase discrimination compared to traditional retrieval methods.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:4015 / 4039
页数:25
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Comparison of MISR and MODIS cloud-top heights in the presence of cloud overlap
    Naud, C. M.
    Baum, B. A.
    Pavolonis, M.
    Heidinger, A.
    Frey, R.
    Zhang, H.
    REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT, 2007, 107 (1-2) : 200 - 210
  • [42] Power system of Meteosat Second Generation
    Knorr, W
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH EUROPEAN SPACE POWER CONFERENCE (ESPC), VOLS 1 AND 2, 1998, 416 : 11 - 16
  • [43] Meteosat second generation refocusing mechanism
    Braam, BC
    vanMierlo, HA
    Buvril, G
    Gill, S
    7TH EUROPEAN SPACE MECHANISMS & TRIBOLOGY SYMPOSIUM, PROCEEDINGS, 1997, 410 : 27 - 32
  • [44] A Simple Approximation for the Reflectance of a Thick Cloud in Gaseous Absorption Band and Its Application for the Cloud-Top Height Determination
    Kokhanovsky, Alexander A.
    Lelli, Luca
    Ducos, Fabrice
    Munro, Rosemary
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, 2019, 57 (06): : 3324 - 3330
  • [45] Meteosat second generation mission status
    Rota, Sergio
    Eur Space Agency Spec Publ ESA SP, 1600, 582 (5-9):
  • [46] Improving NWP Model Cloud Forecasts Using Meteosat Second-Generation Imagery
    van der Veen, Siebe H.
    MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW, 2013, 141 (05) : 1545 - 1557
  • [47] Meteosat Second Generation: The Satellite Development
    Anon
    European Space Agency (Brochure) ESA BR, 2000, (161):
  • [48] Stratocumulus Cloud-Top Height Estimates and Their Climatic Implications
    Zuidema, Paquita
    Painemal, David
    de Szoeke, Simon
    Fairall, Chris
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2009, 22 (17) : 4652 - 4666
  • [49] On the size distribution of cloud holes in stratocumulus and their relationship to cloud-top entrainment
    Yamaguchi, Takanobu
    Feingold, Graham
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2013, 40 (10) : 2450 - 2454
  • [50] Determining AHI Cloud-Top Phase and Intercomparisons with MODIS Products over North Pacific
    Zhuge, Xiaoyong
    Zou, Xiaolei
    Wang, Yuan
    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2021, 59 (01): : 436 - 448