4.7 Article

The impact of horizontal heterogeneities, cloud fraction, and liquid water path on warm cloud effective radii from CERES-like Aqua MODIS retrievals

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
Volume 13, Issue 19, Pages 9997-10003

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-9997-2013

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NASA Postdoctoral Program at the NASA Langley Research Center
  2. NASA Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction Program
  3. NASA CERES Program
  4. NASA Earth Science MEaSUREs DISCOVER Project
  5. AMSR-E Science Team

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 mu m (r(e2.1)) and 3.8 mu m (r(e3.8)) 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 (similar to 20 km), while heterogeneities (H-sigma) are calculated as the ratio between the standard deviation and mean 0.64 mu m reflectance. The value of r(e2.1) strongly depends on CF, with magnitudes up to 5 mu m larger than those for overcast scenes, whereas r(e3.8) remains insensitive to CF. For cloudy scenes, both r(e2.1) and r(e3.8) increase with H-sigma for any given AMSR-E LWP, but r(e2.1) changes more than for r(e3.8). Additionally, r(e3.8)-r(e2.1) differences are positive (<1 mu m) for homogeneous scenes (H-sigma < 0.2) and LWP > 45 gm(-2), and negative (up to -4 mu m) for larger H-sigma. While r(e3.8)-r(e2.1) 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.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available