4.5 Article

Validating MODIS above-cloud aerosol optical depth retrieved from color ratio algorithm using direct measurements made by NASA's airborne AATS and 4STAR sensors

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages 5053-5062

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/amt-9-5053-2016

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present the validation analysis of above-cloud aerosol optical depth (ACAOD) retrieved from the color ratio method applied to MODIS cloudy-sky reflectance measurements using the limited direct measurements made by NASA's airborne Ames Airborne Tracking Sunphotometer (AATS) and Spectrometer for Sky-Scanning, Sun-Tracking Atmospheric Research (4STAR) sensors. A thorough search of the airborne database collection revealed a total of five significant events in which an airborne sun photometer, coincident with the MODIS overpass, observed partially absorbing aerosols emitted from agricultural biomass burning, dust, and wildfires over a low-level cloud deck during SAFARI-2000, ACE-ASIA 2001, and SEAC4RS 2013 campaigns, respectively. The co-located satellite-airborne matchups revealed a good agreement (root-mean-square difference < 0.1), with most matchups falling within the estimated uncertainties associated the MODIS retrievals (about -10 to +50 %). The co-retrieved cloud optical depth was comparable to that of the MODIS operational cloud product for ACE-ASIA and SEAC4RS, however, higher by 30-50% for the SAFARI-2000 case study. The reason for this discrepancy could be attributed to the distinct aerosol optical properties encountered during respective campaigns. A brief discussion on the sources of uncertainty in the satellite-based ACAOD retrieval and co-location procedure is presented. Field experiments dedicated to making direct measurements of aerosols above cloud are needed for the extensive validation of satellite-based retrievals.

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