4.5 Article

Improvements to the OMI O2-O2 operational cloud algorithm and comparisons with ground-based radar-lidar observations

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Volume 9, Issue 12, Pages 6035-6049

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/amt-9-6035-2016

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Netherlands Space Office

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The OMI (Ozone Monitoring Instrument on board NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) Aura satellite) OM-CLDO2 cloud product supports trace gas retrievals of for example ozone and nitrogen dioxide. The OMCLDO2 algorithm derives the effective cloud fraction and effective cloud pressure using a DOAS (differential optical absorption spectroscopy) fit of the O-2-O-2 absorption feature around 477 nm. A new version of the OMI OMCLDO2 cloud product is presented that contains several improvements, of which the introduction of a temperature correction on the O-2-O-2 slant columns and the updated look-up tables have the largest impact. Whereas the differences in the effective cloud fraction are on average limited to 0.01, the differences of the effective cloud pressure can be up to 200 hPa, especially at cloud fractions below 0.3. As expected, the temperature correction depends on latitude and season. The updated look-up tables have a systematic effect on the cloud pressure at low cloud fractions. The improvements at low cloud fractions are very important for the retrieval of trace gases in the lower troposphere, for example for nitrogen dioxide and formaldehyde. The cloud pressure retrievals of the improved algorithm are compared with ground-based radar-lidar observations for three sites at mid-latitudes. For low clouds that have a limited vertical extent the comparison yields good agreement. For higher clouds, which are vertically extensive and often contain several layers, the satellite retrievals give a lower cloud height. For high clouds, mixed results are obtained.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available