2013
DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50579
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From CloudSat‐CALIPSO to EarthCare: Evolution of the DARDAR cloud classification and its comparison to airborne radar‐lidar observations

Abstract: [1] This paper presents the implementation of a new version of the DARDAR (radar lidar) classification derived from CloudSat and CALIPSO data. The resulting target classification called DARDAR v2 is compared to the first version called DARDAR v1. Overall DARDAR v1 reports more cloud or rain pixels than DARDAR v2. In the low troposphere this is because v1 detects too many liquid cloud pixels, and in the higher troposphere this is because v2 is more restrictive in lidar detection than v1. Nevertheless, the spati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

5
148
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(153 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
5
148
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First all targets detected by radar are classified as containing ice due to the sensitivity of that instrument to the largest particles. Then liquid and ice as detected by lidar are distinguished based on the vertical gradient of lidar backscatter, which is higher in liquid cloud (Ceccaldi et al, 2013); this method of distinguishing liquid cloud is consistent with the method of Yoshida et al (2010) using the lidar depolarization ratio. Where radar detects ice and lidar detects liquid, mixed-phase cloud is diagnosed.…”
Section: Target Classificationsupporting
confidence: 58%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First all targets detected by radar are classified as containing ice due to the sensitivity of that instrument to the largest particles. Then liquid and ice as detected by lidar are distinguished based on the vertical gradient of lidar backscatter, which is higher in liquid cloud (Ceccaldi et al, 2013); this method of distinguishing liquid cloud is consistent with the method of Yoshida et al (2010) using the lidar depolarization ratio. Where radar detects ice and lidar detects liquid, mixed-phase cloud is diagnosed.…”
Section: Target Classificationsupporting
confidence: 58%
“…We exploit the instruments' complementary sensitivities to different classes of hydrometeors to infer the presence of liquid cloud, rain and drizzle, and ice. This approach to radar-lidar target classification is similar to that described for CloudSat-CALIPSO in Ceccaldi et al (2013); however, the categories are simplified in this analysis.…”
Section: Target Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DARDAR contains two products: DARDAR-MASK (Delanoë and Hogan, 2010;Ceccaldi et al, 2013) and DARDAR-CLOUD Hogan, 2008, 2010), which are both available through the ICARE Thematic Center (http://www.icare.univ-lille1.fr/archive, last access: 1 July 2017). DARDAR-MASK provides the vertical cloud classification and a range of additional categorisations (e.g.…”
Section: Dardarmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the synergistic retrievals for the IIR thermal camera and CALIOP aboard CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations) by Garnier et al, 2012Garnier et al, , 2013Garnier et al, , 2015 or fly in a satellite constellation like the Atrain (e.g. the synergistic retrievals for CALIOP and CPR or CALIOP, CPR and MODIS by Donovan and van Lammeren, 2001;Deng et al, 2010;Ceccaldi et al, 2013;Hogan, 2008, 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%