A comparison of cloud layers from ground and satellite active remote sensing at the Southern Great Plains ARM site

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jinqiang Zhang ; Xiang’ao Xia ; Hongbin Chen
• 关键词：Key wordssurface ; satellite ; active remote sensing ; clouds
• 刊名：Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：March 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：34
• 期：3
• 页码：347-359
• 全文大小：
• 刊物主题：Atmospheric Sciences; Meteorology; Geophysics/Geodesy;
• 出版者：Science Press
• ISSN：1861-9533
• 卷排序：34

文摘

Using the data collected over the Southern Great Plains ARM site from 2006 to 2010, the surface Active Remote Sensing of Cloud (ARSCL) and CloudSat-CALIPSO satellite (CC) retrievals of total cloud and six specified cloud types [low, mid-low (ML), high-mid-low (HML), mid, high-mid (HM) and high] were compared in terms of cloud fraction (CF), cloud-base height (CBH), cloud-top height (CTH) and cloud thickness (CT), on different temporal scales, to identify their respective advantages and limitations. Good agreement between the two methods was exhibited in the total CF. However, large discrepancies were found between the cloud distributions of the two methods at a high (240-m) vertical grid spacing. Compared to the satellites, ARSCL retrievals detected more boundary layer clouds, while they underestimated high clouds. In terms of the six specific cloud types, more low- and mid-level clouds but less HML- and high-level clouds were detected by ARSCL than by CC. In contrast, the ARSCL retrievals of ML- and HM-level clouds agreed more closely with the estimations from the CC product. Lower CBHs tended to be reported by the surface data for low-, ML- and HML-level clouds; however, higher CTHs were often recorded by the satellite product for HML-, HM- and high-level clouds. The mean CTs for low- and ML-level cloud were similar between the two products; however, the mean CTs for HML-, mid-, HM- and high-level clouds from ARSCL were smaller than those from CC.