Validating the Validation: The Influence of Liquid Water Distribution in Clouds on the Intercomparison of Satellite and Surface Observations

Abstract

The intercomparison of LWP retrievals from observations by a geostationary satellite imager [Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) on board Meteosat Second Generation (MSG)] and a ground-based microwave (MW) radiometer is examined in the context of the inhomogeneity of overcast cloudy skies. Although the influence of cloud inhomogeneity on satellite observations has received much attention, relatively little is known about its impact on validation studies. Given SEVIRI's large field of view (3 km 3 6 km for northern Europe), especially when compared to the narrow width of the radiometer tracks (100-200 m), cloud inhomogeneity may be expected to significantly affect the satellite retrieval validation.This paper quantifies the various validation uncertainties resulting from cloud inhomogeneities and proposes an approach to minimize these uncertainties. The study is performed by simulating both satellite and ground-based observations through resampling a set of high-resolution (100 m) cloud fields that are derived from 1 km 3 1 km Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) observations. The authors' technique for generating realistic high-resolution LWP fields preserves the information present in the original observations and creates extra LWP variation at smaller-length scales by considering clouds as simple fractals. The authors believe that this is a new technique for creating high-resolution LWP fields.Validation errors resulting from cloud inhomogeneity can be classified in two groups. The first group relates entirely to the retrieval process for satellite observations and includes the well-known plane-parallel bias as well as field-of-view mismatches between different channels used in the retrieval. The second group relates to differences in the scene observed by satellite and ground-based sensors. This includes systematic shifts in the observed scene resulting from viewing conditions (parallax effect), offsets between satellite images and ground sites, and different fields of view.Results indicate that the plane-parallel bias for the authors' sample of 604 clouds has a median value of 23.3 g m 22 . All other error contributions appear to be random and have no biases. For individual observations, the parallax effect easily dominates the total error budget for sites that are observed under large viewing angles (e.g., northern Europe). The authors show that this error may be partly compensated by using information about cloud-top heights and by spatially interpolating among an array of SEVIRI pixels to obtain the best estimate of the satellite-retrieved LWP value over the ground site. Optimal intercomparison of satellite and ground-based observations is also possible by matching the track length of the ground observations to the imager's pixel size in the wind direction.Thus, one surprising conclusion is that the LWP errors resulting from the second group (scene differences) are significantly larger than those resulting from the first group (satellite retrieval), even after correction...

Comparing satellite- to ground-based automated and manual cloud coverage observations – a case study

“…They classified the validation errors due to this inhomogeneity into two categories: retrieval process for satellite observations (planeparallel bias and field-of-view mismatches between the radiometer's channels) and differences in observed scenery (by satellite-and ground-based measurements). Schutgens and Roebeling (2009) conclude that the dominating error is due to scene differences and that smaller pixel sizes increase this behavior unless the parallax effect is corrected. Greuell and Roebeling (2009) established standards for validation procedures to minimize these errors by determining the optimum statistical agreement between satellite-and ground-based liquid water path measurements.…”

“…Observers as well as some instruments were unable to detect very high thin and wispy clouds. Schutgens and Roebeling (2009) analyzed the influence of cloud inhomogeneity on intercomparisons of liquid water distribution retrievals by a geostationary satellite imager and a ground-based microwave radiometer. They classified the validation errors due to this inhomogeneity into two categories: retrieval process for satellite observations (planeparallel bias and field-of-view mismatches between the radiometer's channels) and differences in observed scenery (by satellite-and ground-based measurements).…”

Impact of cloud horizontal inhomogeneity and directional sampling on the retrieval of cloud droplet size by the POLDER instrument

“…However, this method relies on the assumption of homogeneity in the cloud over large distances (Bréon and Doutriaux-Boucher, 2005;Bréon and Colzy, 2000). Actual clouds may not satisfy the homogeneity assumption (Schutgens and Roebeling, 2009). Moreover, the coarse resolution limits the usage in certain aerosol-cloud interaction studies (Sekiguchi, 2003;Gryspeerdt et al, 2014).…”

From climate research to climate compatible development: experiences and progress in the Netherlands

“…The RACMO climate model was revised (van Meijgaard et al 2012) and refined with new knowledge about the boundary layer (Baas et al 2008), aerosols (Weijers et al 2011;Ten Brink et al 2009), soil hydrology parameters (Jong et al 2008), cloud formation (Bouniol et al 2010;Schutgens and Roebeling 2009) and evaluated with European remote sensing data (Wipfler et al 2011). This was done in a multidisciplinary approach in which insights from physics, soil science and hydrology (Brauer et al 2009), derived from monitoring projects (Russchenberg et al 2011), were combined with meteorology.…”