Search

The Edition 2 (Ed2) cloud property retrieval algorithm system was upgraded and applied to the MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data for the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Edition 4 (Ed4) products. New calibrations for solar channels and the use of the 1.24- $\mu \text{m}$ channel for cloud optical depth (COD) over snow improve the daytime consistency between Terra and Aqua MODIS retrievals. Use of additional spectral channels and revised logic enhanced the cloud-top phase retrieval accuracy. A new ice crystal reflectance model and a CO2-channel algorithm retrieved higher ice clouds, while a new regional lapse rate technique produced more accurate water cloud heights than in Ed2. Ice cloud base heights are more accurate due to a new cloud thickness parameterization. Overall, CODs increased, especially over the polar (PO) regions. The mean particle sizes increased slightly for water clouds, but more so for ice clouds in the PO areas. New experimental parameters introduced in Ed4 are limited in utility, but will be revised for the next CERES edition. As part of the Ed4 retrieval evaluation, the average properties are compared with those from other algorithms and the differences between individual reference data and matched Ed4 retrievals are explored. Part II of this article provides a comprehensive, objective evaluation of selected parameters. More accurate interpretation of the CERES radiation measurements has resulted from the use of the Ed4 cloud properties.

The Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) has been monitoring clouds and radiation since 2000 using algorithms developed before 2002 for CERES Edition 2 (Ed2) products. To improve cloud amount accuracy, CERES Edition 4 (Ed4) applies revised algorithms and input data to Terra and Aqua MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) radiances. The Ed4 cloud mask uses 5–7 additional channels, new models for clear-sky ocean and snow/ice-surface radiances, and revised Terra MODIS calibrations. Mean Ed4 daytime and nighttime cloud amounts exceed their Ed2 counterparts by 0.035 and 0.068. Excellent consistency between average Aqua and Terra cloud fraction is found over nonpolar regions. Differences over polar regions are likely due to unresolved calibration discrepancies. Relative to Ed2, Ed4 cloud amounts agree better with those from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO). CALIPSO comparisons indicate that Ed4 cloud amounts are more than or as accurate as other available cloud mask systems. The Ed4 mask correctly identifies cloudy or clear areas 90%–96% of the time during daytime over nonpolar areas depending on the CALIPSO–MODIS averaging criteria. At night, the range is 88%–95%. Accuracy decreases over land. The polar day and night accuracy ranges are 90%–91% and 80%–81%, respectively. The mean Ed4 cloud fractions slightly exceed the average for seven other imager cloud masks. Remaining biases and uncertainties are mainly attributed to errors in Ed4 predicted clear-sky radiances. The resulting cloud fractions should help CERES produce a more accurate radiation budget and serve as part of a cloud property climate data record.

The impact of horizontal heterogeneities, liquid water path (LWP from AMSR-E), and cloud fraction (CF) on MODIS cloud effective radius (re), retrieved from the 2.1 μm (re2.1) and 3.8 μm (re3.8) channels, is investigated for warm clouds over the southeast Pacific. Values of re retrieved using the CERES algorithms are averaged at the CERES footprint resolution (∼20 km), while heterogeneities (Hσ) are calculated as the ratio between the standard deviation and mean 0.64 μm reflectance. The value of re2.1 strongly depends on CF, with magnitudes up to 5 μm larger than those for overcast scenes, whereas re3.8 remains insensitive to CF. For cloudy scenes, both re2.1 and re3.8 increase with Hσ for any given AMSR-E LWP, but re2.1 changes more than for re3.8. Additionally, re3.8–re2.1 differences are positive (Hσ < 0.2) and LWP > 45 gm−2, and negative (up to −4 μm) for larger Hσ. While re3.8–re2.1 differences in homogeneous scenes are qualitatively consistent with in situ microphysical observations over the region of study, negative differences – particularly evinced in mean regional maps – are more likely to reflect the dominant bias associated with cloud heterogeneities rather than information about the cloud vertical structure. The consequences for MODIS LWP are also discussed.

The impact of horizontal heterogeneities, liquid water path (LWP from AMSR-E), and cloud fraction (CF) on MODIS cloud effective radius (re), retrieved from the 2.1 μm (re2.1) and 3.8 μm (re3.8) channels, is investigated for warm clouds over the southeast Pacific. Values of re retrieved using the CERES Edition 4 algorithms are averaged at the CERES footprint resolution (~ 20 km), while heterogeneities (Hσ) are calculated as the ratio between the standard deviation and mean 0.64 μm reflectance. The value of re2.1 strongly depends on CF, with magnitudes up to 5 μm larger than those for overcast scenes, whereas re3.8 remains insensitive to CF. For cloudy scenes, both re2.1 and re3.8 increase with Hσ for any given AMSR-E LWP, but re2.1 changes more than for re3.8. Additionally, re3.8 – re2.1 differences are positive (< 1 μm) for homogeneous scenes (Hσ < 0.2) and LWP > 50 g m−2, and negative (up to −4 μm) for larger Hσ. Thus, re3.8 – re2.1 differences are more likely to reflect biases associated with cloud heterogeneities rather than information about the cloud vertical structure. The consequences for MODIS LWP are also discussed.

[1] Present-day shortcomings in the representation of upper tropospheric ice clouds in general circulation models (GCMs) lead to errors in weather and climate forecasts as well as account for a source of uncertainty in climate change projections. An ongoing challenge in rectifying these shortcomings has been the availability of adequate, high-quality, global observations targeting ice clouds and related precipitating hydrometeors. In addition, the inadequacy of the modeled physics and the often disjointed nature between model representation and the characteristics of the retrieved/observed values have hampered GCM development and validation efforts from making effective use of the measurements that have been available. Thus, even though parameterizations in GCMs accounting for cloud ice processes have, in some cases, become more sophisticated in recent years, this development has largely occurred independently of the global-scale measurements. With the relatively recent addition of satellite-derived products from Aura/Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) and CloudSat, there are now considerably more resources with new and unique capabilities to evaluate GCMs. In this article, we illustrate the shortcomings evident in model representations of cloud ice through a comparison of the simulations assessed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, briefly discuss the range of global observational resources that are available, and describe the essential components of the model parameterizations that characterize their "cloud" ice and related fields. Using this information as background, we (1) discuss some of the main considerations and cautions that must be taken into account in making model-data comparisons related to cloud ice, (2) illustrate present progress and uncertainties in applying satellite cloud ice (namely from MLS and CloudSat) to model diagnosis, (3) show some indications of model improvements, and finally (4) discuss a number of remaining questions and suggestions for pathways forward.

CloudSat and CALIPSO cloud and aerosol information is convolved with CERES and MODIS cloud and radiation data to produce a merged 3-dimensional cloud and radiation dataset.

The clouds and Earth's radiant energy system (CERES) project is producing a suite of cloud properties from high-resolution imagers on several satellites and matching them precisely with broadband radiance data to study the influence of clouds and radiation on climate. The cloud properties generally compare well with independent validation sources. Distinct differences are found between the CERES cloud properties and those derived with other algorithms from the same imager data. CERES products will be updated beginning in late 2006.

Clouds cover about 70% of Earth's surface and play a dominant role in the energy and water cycle of our planet. Only satellite observations provide a continuous survey of the state of the atmosphere over the entire globe and across the wide range of spatial and temporal scales that compose weather and climate variability. Satellite cloud data records now exceed more than 25 years; however, climate data records must be compiled from different satellite datasets and can exhibit systematic biases. Questions therefore arise as to the accuracy and limitations of the various sensors and retrieval methods. The Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Cloud Assessment, initiated in 2005 by the GEWEX Radiation Panel (GEWEX Data and Assessment Panel since 2011), provides the first coordinated intercomparison of publicly available, standard global cloud products (gridded monthly statistics) retrieved from measurements of multispectral imagers (some with multiangle view and polarization capabilities), IR sounders, and lidar. Cloud properties under study include cloud amount, cloud height (in terms of pressure, temperature, or altitude), cloud thermodynamic phase, and cloud radiative and bulk microphysical properties (optical depth or emissivity, effective particle radius, and water path). Differences in average cloud properties, especially in the amount of high-level clouds, are mostly explained by the inherent instrument measurement capability for detecting and/or identifying optically thin cirrus, especially when overlying low-level clouds. The study of long-term variations with these datasets requires consideration of many factors. The monthly gridded database presented here facilitates further assessments, climate studies, and the evaluation of climate models.