cloud feedbacks from cloudsat/calipso to …cloud feedbacks from cloudsat/calipso to earthcare h....
TRANSCRIPT
CFMIP workshop @Hongo campus, Univ. Tokyo 25-28 September 2017,
Presentation at 9:30-9:45, on 26th. (Tuesday)
Cloud feedbacks from CloudSat/CALIPSO to EarthCARE
H. Okamoto, K. Sato and S. Katagiri (Research Institute for Applied Mechanics, Kyushu University)
KU-products with refinements
1. Cloud mask from CloudSat/CALIPSO (KU-mask) Improved from Hagihara et al., 2010JGR, 2014JGR, with ground-based multiple scattering polarization lidar (MFMSPL) (Okamoto et al. 2016 Opt. Express).
2. Cloud particle type from CloudSat/CALIPSO(KU-type) Improved from Yoshida et al., 2010JGR by MFMSPL. CloudSat- and CloudSat/CALIPSO synergy-type algorithms Kikuchi et al., 2017JGR (in press).
3. Ice and water cloud microphysics from CloudSat/CALIPSO (KU-micro) improved from Okamoto et al., 2010 JGR, Sato and Okamoto 2011 JGR. Sato et al., in prep.
2
(ΔH=1.1km, ΔH=240m)
2
EarthCARE (Earth Clouds Aerosol Radiation Explorer)
JAXA-ESA joint mission
1. 94GHz Doppler cloud radar (CPR)
2. 355nm high spectral resolution lidar (ATLID) (ΔH=1km or 10km, ΔZ=100m)
3. Multi-spectral imager (MSI) 7channels (0.69, 0.865, 1.65, 2.21,8.8, 10.8, 12.0µm)
4. Broad band radiometer (BBR) 3 views
launch date :2019 altitude : 393.14km
JAXA product, ESA product
KU-products are extended and will be distributed as JAXA-EarthCARE-products (ΔH=1km or 10km, ΔZ=100m)
(Illingworth et al., 2015 BAMS)
3
composite diagram using the CALIPSO data (see Sect. 2.5
for the method).Before examining the cloud changes in 2 9 CO2 and
their differences among the models, we compare the mean
cloud fraction between CALIPSO and GCMs (shading inFig. 9). The satellite-based estimate of the cloud fraction
(Fig. 9a) reveals the following characteristics: a maximum
of more than 30% occurring at the highest value of LTS,and a gradual increase of the cloud layer altitude as LTS
decreases. These features of the mean low-cloud fractionmay also be seen when we make the longitude-height
section along the subtropical eastern oceans (Wang et al.
2004). All the GCMs not only fail to reproduce the clouddistribution derived from CALIPSO but also show different
types of bias. Namely, low clouds are overestimated for
low LTS in MIROC5, CCSM3, and GISS ER, whereasoverall they are underestimated in MIROC3, CCCma, and
GFDL CM2.0. The cloud layer is too thin in MRI GCM.
The causes of these biases would involve various factorsand are beyond the scope of this study, but we need to bear
them in mind when comparing the cloud change in the
2 9 CO2 runs.The divergence of the mean cloud distribution in GCMs
prevents us from detecting and understanding the
consistent change in the cloud fraction in the 2 9 CO2
experiments (contours in Fig. 9). Yet, we can identify someconsistency although it may not necessarily explain the
different magnitude and sign of the total low-cloud change.
For example, a relatively large change in the cloud fractionis found at small LTS in models that overestimate the mean
cloud there (e.g., MIROC5, CCSM3, and GISS ER). At
large LTS, many models show an increase and decrease ofclouds above and below the mean cloud layer, suggesting
an upward shift of the cloud layer. This accompanies anasymmetry in the cloud amount change, either a greater
increase (e.g., MIROC5, CCSM3, and GISS ER) or
decrease (e.g., MIROC3, INM, and MRI), probablyresulting in a non-zero change of the low-cloud amount.
Despite large differences in the mean cloud fraction and
its changes among GCMs, the change in the thermody-namic condition Ps has a common structure, which repre-
sents a shift of the PDF peak to larger values (bottom
panels in Fig. 9). While the degree of the PDF shiftdepends on the model (for example, it is large in CCSM3
but small in INM), this coincidence indicates that the
changing thermodynamic constraint as found in the twoMIROC models (Fig. 8b, d) is a robust part of the climate
change. If the cloud change at a given LTS (contours) does
Fig. 9 Regime composite ofthe cloud fraction in the lowertroposphere over the tropicaloceans as sorted by LTS(shading), together with its PDF(curves at the bottom of eachpanel): a CloudSAT/CALIPSOfrom June 2006 to May 2007,b MIROC3.2, c MIROC5,d–i CFMIP1 models, all fromcontrol runs. The vertical axis isthe normalized pressure. In b–i,contours indicate the differencebetween the control and either4 9 CO2 or 2 9 CO2 runs(intervals ±1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10%),and blue (red) curves in thebottom panels are the PDF forthe control (4 9 CO2 or2 9 CO2) run. The greyshading in the PDF gives thedefinition of stable regime (seetext)
M. Watanabe et al.: Fast and slow timescales
123
20
15
10
5
0
Altit
ude
(km
)
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90Latitude (degrees)
10-22 4 6 8
10-12 4 6 8
100
Cloud Fraction
C4, Oct_06
1.KU-mask: CF sorted by LTS in tropics.
(Watanabe et al., 2011Clim Dyn)
There are large variations of vertical-LTS of low clouds among GCMs. They failed to reproduce patterns from CloudSat/CALIPSO.
KU-mask
(Hagihara et al., 2010JGR)
4
KU-type MIROC5 GCM
2. KU-type: ice-water partition
(Watanabe et al., 2010 J. Climate)
(Yoshida et al., 2010 JGR, Hirakata et al., 2014 JTECH)
δ-X diagram was used for ice/water partition in KU-type by 2 curves and 3 lines. X=log(βi/βi+1), proxy of extinction.
waterice ice water100
80
60
40
20
0
Dep
olar
izat
ion
ratio
[%]
2.01.51.00.50.0-0.5-1.0X
1 2 3 4 5
3D-ice
water
unknown2unknown1
2D-plate
Cloud schemes in MIROC5 GCM generally captures temperature-latitude pattern of ice-water ratio, except for high latitudes.
5
3. KU-micro: evaluation of vertical grid spacing of NICAM
KU-micro (Okamoto et al., 2010 JGR, Sato and Okamoto 2011 JGR)
ß, δ, Ze → Reff, IWC, mixing ratio of 2D-plate
IWC in NICAM is underestimated in tropics (Seiki et al., GRL 2015).
Higher vertical resolution <400m is necessary to reproduce IWC in NICAM with ΔH=14 and 28km.
6
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18a. GOCCP
Hei
gh
t (k
m)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18b. ST
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18c. KU
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 d. GOCCP − ST
Latitude (°N)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 e. GOCCP − KU
Cloud Fraction Bias (%)−20 −16 −12 −8 −4
Cloud Fraction (%)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18a. GOCCP
Hei
gh
t (k
m)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
b. ST
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
c. KU
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 d. GOCCP − ST
Latitude (°N)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 e. GOCCP − KU
Cloud Fraction (%)0 3 6
Cloud Fraction Bias (%)−20−16−12 −8 −4 0 4 8 12 16 20
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18a. GOCCP
Hei
gh
t (k
m)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
b. ST
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
c. KU
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 d. GOCCP − ST
Latitude (°N)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 e. GOCCP − KU
Cloud Fraction (%)0 3 6
Cloud Fraction Bias (%)−20−16−12 −8 −4 0 4 8 12 16 20
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
a. GOCCP
Hei
gh
t (k
m)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
b. ST
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
c. KU
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
d. GOCCP − ST
Latitude (°N)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
e. GOCCP − KU
Cloud Fraction Bias (%)−20 −16 −12 −8 −4
Cloud Fraction (%)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
a. GOCCP
Hei
gh
t (k
m)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
b. ST
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
c. KU
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
d. GOCCP − ST
Latitude (°N)
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6
8
10
12
e. GOCCP − KU
Cloud Fraction (%)0 3 6
Cloud Fraction Bias (%)−20−16−12 −8 −4 0 4 8 12 16 20
4. Comparison of ice and water cloud fraction from CALIPSO
ice cloud fraction
water cloud fraction
cloud
Cesana et al., 2016 JGR due to different treatment of noise, clouds/aerosol partitions, resolutions, fully attenuated pixels, multiple scattering
KU
NASA KUFrenchFrench NASA
The ST and KU liquid fractions remain consistent before and after the tilt change. Another possibility concernsthe different treatments of aerosols in the algorithms, which might generate some discrepancies over thedust-polluted regions such as the Saharan desert or the China basin.
5.3. Cloud Phase Transition Against Temperature
Previous studies showed that the cloud phase transition between liquid and ice clouds (i.e., the ratio of iceclouds to all clouds, referred as to Phase Ratio, PR) could be represented in a simple way using the tempera-ture [e.g., Bower et al., 1996; Korolev et al., 2003; Hu et al., 2010; Cesana and Chepfer, 2013]. This method lets useasily compare different data sets on the same plot using the same thermodynamical variable—the tempera-ture—as reference. Here we took advantage of the in situ measurements to validate the temperature used inthe CALIPSO products (GEOS5-DAS in GOCCP and ST, and European Centre for Medium-Range WeatherForecasts-auxiliary product (ECMWF-AUX) provided by the CloudSat team in KU). We averaged the aircrafttemperature onto the CALIPSO horizontal sampling grid and then computed the mean absolute error(MAE) and the maximum error (ME) for all/cloud/clear sky pixels (according to the in situ measurements).The results are presented in Table S1. In the Arctic as well at midlatitudes, the MAE is lower than 2°C andthe ME no more than 4°C.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between the PR and the temperature, for the CALIPSO products (GOCCP inred, ST in magenta, and KU in green), the aircraft in situ measurements (black + circle line), and the averagebetween five passive sensor satellites of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment-Cloud Assessment(GEWEX-CA) [Stubenrauch et al., 2013; blue line and blue shade]. To make this figure, we created Phase-Temperature composites by breaking the PR into 3° temperature bins. For the CALIPSO products, weused the monthly mean files over 1 year (thick dashed lines). As GOCCP and KU relations are sensitive tothe change of CALIOP nadir-pointing angle (0.3° off nadir before 2008, to 3° off nadir after), we used the year2008 to build these relations (ST ice and liquid cloud amount remain consistent before and after the tilt, notshown). The change of nadir angle decreased specular returns of horizontally oriented ice crystals. Thisresulted in less false cloud detection and less false liquid cloud determination since ice crystal plates producethe same signature as liquid droplets [e.g., Sassen et al., 2012]. In GOCCP, we assumed undefined-phase
Figure 5. same as Figure 4 for liquid clouds.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 10.1002/2015JD024334
CESANA ET AL. CALIPSO CLOUD PHASE VALIDATION 5802
Large differences in three CALIPSO global products.7
4-2. Depolarization ratio due to multiple-scattering The depolarization ratio for the four tilt angles was estimated using eight channels (Fig.
4). Depolarization ratio ( )δ θ for four different angles θ (mrad) was estimated by
(0) ( .2) / ( .1),(10) ( .4) / ( .3),(20) ( .6) / ( .5), (30) ( .8) / ( .7),
att att
att att
att att
att att
Ch ChCh ChCh Ch andCh Ch
δ β βδ β βδ β βδ β β
⊥
⊥
⊥
⊥
====
�
�
�
�
(1).
3500
300025002000
1500
Hei
ght [
m]
80x103706050403020
Time in 5 March 2015
CH2/CH1 (0mrad)
1.00.80.60.40.20.0Depolarization ratio
35003000250020001500
Hei
ght [
m]
80x103706050403020
Time in March 05 2015
CH4/CH3 (10mrad)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
Hei
ght [
m]
80x103706050403020
Time in March 5, 2016
CH6/CH5 (20mrad)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500H
eigh
t [m
]
80x103706050403020
Time in March 5, 2016
CH8/CH7 (30mrad)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
Hei
ght [m
]
8x105765432
Time in March 05 2015
NIES lidar
(e)
Fig. 4. Same as Fig. 2 but for depolarization ratio. (a) For on-beam channel, (b) for 10 mrad, (c) for 20 mrad, (d) for 30 mrad, and (e) for NIES lidar.
Vol. 24, No. 26 | 26 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 30060
Ľ�
2.1!OûĞýƵOĝ����ƮƆƗƶűģÌ!MFMSPL&(Mul*&+&Field&of&view&+&Mul*ple&–&Sca7ering&–&Polariza*on&–&Lidar)&!
Nd:YAG&laser� Beam&Expander�
Ch.2�Ch.4�Ch.6�Ch.8�
Ch.1�Ch.3�Ch.5�Ch.7�
Amplifer�
PC�
AD!Comveter�
Parallel!channel!
Perpendicular!channel!
0 10 20 30 40 [!mrad!]�ƸTiltƹ�parallel&channel&
Perpendicular&channel&
ŒƏƑƚƪ¡Ëœ�
ŒMFMSPLœ�
OnYbeam�offYbeam�
OnYbeam!!!:!Ch.1,!2!OffYbeam1!:!Ch.3,!4!OffYbeam2!:!Ch.5,!6!OffYbeam3!:!Ch.7,!8�
ĠÏ%þïĸĸƽ!!6m!�Ĥ%þïĸĸƽ!!10Ø!ü·CƽŪŜųƸÇJÕƹ!Ėèü·ƽ2014/6/7!~�
4/14�
5. Multi-Field of View MultipleScattering Polarization Lidar
8 telescopes are used and total FOV ~
70mrad.
This is the first time that depolarization ratio for optically thick clouds was observed by ground-based lidar.
(Okamoto et al., 2016, Opt. Express.)
Fig. 2. MFMSPL installed at the National Institute of Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba, Japan.
Table 1. MFMSPL system specifications.
Transmitter Laser Nd:YAG, Q-switched, linearly polarized (Quantel, Brilliant EaZy) Wavelength 532 nm Pulse energy 165 mJ/pulse Repetition rate 10 Hz Receiver Lens Diameter = 5 cm, focal length = 40 cm (CVI Laser Optics) FOV 10 mrad Detectors PMTs (Licel, PM-HV-20)
Bandpass filter Interference filter with 1 nm FWHM (Andover Corporation)
ND filters Transmittance: 1% for Ch.1 and 7% for Ch.2 (Sigma Koki Group) (ND filters were used only for channels 1 and 2)
Data acquisition • A/D converter for all of the channels, 25 MHz, 16-bit (Turtle Industry Co., TUSB-0216ADM)
3. Calibration procedures There are two steps used for calibration of the MFMSPL to obtain attenuated backscattering coefficient (ßatt) for each channel. The first is absolute calibration, which is performed by comparing signals observed by Mie-type NIES vertical-pointing lidar and those observed from channel 1 (vertical-pointing). Calibration of the NIES lidar was performed in advance, according to the procedure described in [16]. The NIES lidar was necessary for calibration because the MFMSPL cannot detect signals from altitudes higher than 8 km during the day, due to its limited sensitivity, and self-calibration was not possible.
Vol. 24, No. 26 | 26 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 30057 Simulation of space-borne lidar signals becomes possible. Evaluation of CALIPSO/ATLID algorithm can be done.
vertical
10mrad
20mrad
30mrad
40mrad
From Cesana et al., 2016 JGR
8
5-1. Ice and water cloud fraction by refined KU-type
20
15
10
5
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
0.300.250.200.150.100.05
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
0.200.150.100.05
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Height [km]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80Latitude [degN]
Liquid Cloud Fration - Former Version -
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
20
15
10
5
0
Height [km]
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80Latitude [degN]
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Ice Cloud Fration - Former Version - iceice
WaterWater
Former
Former
Refined
Refined
Low level water cloud fraction increases in refined scheme.8
KU (new)
KU (new)
Ice cloud fraction
Water cloud fraction
6. Differences among three global products decrease.
KU(old)<GOCCP<ST -> GOCCP<KU(new)<ST
Might be interesting to revisit LTS-CF relation.
9
15
10
5
Height [km]
-80 -40 0 40 80Latitude
5 6 70.1
2 3
Particle type from CloudSat-only and CloudSat/CALIPSO
Sato et al., 2017 ( in prep.)
LWC from CALIPSO
Confidential manuscript submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
12
4.1 CPR Stand-alone Hydrometeor Particle Type 370
The CPR stand-alone algorithm consists of three main steps: (1) initial classification of 371 hydrometeor particle type based on radar reflectivity and temperature, (2) correction for 372 classification of cloud–precipitation, and (3) spatial continuity test. 373
4.1.1 Initial Classification of Hydrometeor Particle Type 374
The hydrometeor type is initially determined based on the relationship of the dominant 375 hydrometeor type with radar reflectivity and temperature. For this purpose, we constructed a type 376 classification diagram that describes the initial guess of hydrometeor type using the relationship 377 (Fig. 4). This was derived from Fig. 2 by selecting the hydrometeor type that gave the highest 378 fractional occurrence exceeding the minimum threshold of 3 u 10-6 at a given radar reflectivity–379 temperature bin. The category of water was further separated according to temperature T into the 380 warm water ( CT qt 0 ) and the supercooled water ( CT q� 0 ). Furthermore, when the fractional 381
occurrence was below the threshold, we assigned rain to CT qt 0 , and snow to CT q� 0 based on 382 the fact that dominance of the precipitation coincides with the low occurrence of CPR/CALIOP 383 detection as argued in Section 3.2. In the next step described in Section 4.1.2, the temperature 384 threshold of 0 qC for rain-snow separation is modified to 2 qC [Liu 2008], in the convective 385 cloud types where falling snows typically reach below 0qC level. The convective cloud types 386
were defined by those with the temperature at the lowest hydrometeor top layer ( LHTTemp ) 387
below 0 qC. 388
389
390
Figure 4. Radar reflectivity–temperature diagram for the initial hydrometeor type classification 391 in the radar algorithm. In the precipitation correction, we modified the 0 qC threshold for rain 392 and snow separation to 2 qC for convective clouds where the temperature at the lowest 393 hydrometeor top was below 0 qC. 394
395
Kikuchi et al., 2017 JGR
7. New KU-products (will be distributed soon)Water microphysics from CALIPSO (based on fast semi-analytical methods
Ice microphysics from CS/CA refined.
Physical optics for CALIPSO, better ice scattering models (with Borovoi’s and Ishimoto’s group)
10
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
ß [/m
/sr]
for I
WC
=1g/
m3
4 6 810
2 4 6 8100
2 4 6 81000
Effective radius [µm]
2D-Plates (1.0) for 0.3 deg. 2D-Plates (1.0) for 3 deg. 2D-Plates (2.0) for 0.3 deg.2D-Plates (2.0) for 3 deg. 2D-Plates (0.5) for 3 deg.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Lida
r rat
io
6050403020100
Depolarization ratio [%]
Lser tilt angle=3 deg. 2D-plate with beta=0.5 2D-plate with beta=1 2D-plate with beta=2 2D-column with beta=0.5 2D-column with beta=1.0 2D-column with beta=2.0 Droxtals
Ice (and aerosol) particle type from HSRL function of ATLID
Simultaneous retrievals of vertical air motion, particle fall speed and particle mass flux from Doppler-CPR-ATLID.
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Vd
[m/s
]
30025020015010050Effective radius [µm]
Droxtal 94GHz radar
Droxtals
Columns
Oriented plates
8. New from EarthCARE
to evaluate cumulus convective parameterization and cloud parameterization
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Signal [A.U.]
-2.5 0.0 2.5Wavelength shift [pm]
Particle
Molecule
12x103
8
4Hei
ght [
m]
414039383736Latitude [degree]
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0Doppler velocity [m/s]
Lida ratio=σext/ß
11
Summary
1. Refined KU-mask shows increase of low-level cloud fraction. 2. Refined KU-type shows increase of water cloud fraction. 3. LUTs for ice particles are updated in order to bridge the gap in retrieved microphysics among nadir- and off-nadir CALIPSO periods and also EarthCARE.
4. Fast semi-analytical approach for lidar multiple scattering is developed. Water microphysics is retrieved by CALIPSO(Sato’s presentation).
5. Ground-base multiple scattering polarization lidar is developed and extension is planned to connect CALIPSO and ATLID on EarthCARE information.
6. EarthCARE is expected to provide vertical air motion, better particle typing, and cloud mass flux by Doppler function of CPR and high spectral resolution function of ATLID.
12
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000H
eigh
t [m
]
68x103666462605856
Time
10-8 10
-6 10-4
ßtotal [1/m/sr] for CH5 and CH6
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
Hei
ght [
m]
68x103666462605856
Time
10-8 10
-6 10-4
ßtotal [1/m/sr] for CH5 and CH6
5-1. Refinement of KU-mask by MFMSPL
Former KU-maskRefined KU-mask
Current KU-mask underestimates cloud fraction in large attenuation in liar signals. Refined scheme overcomes the issue mainly by introducing different discrimination schemes at/below cloud top (above cloud bottom) for space-borne (ground-based) lidar.
Okamoto et al., 2017a
Doppler accuracy of EarthCARE CPR
16km mode (PRF=7200Hz)a:
10km horizontal integration: 1.1m/s for -19dB (worst case). 0.6m/s for -19dB (nominal case).
1km horizontal integration: 1.3m/s for -14dBZ (worst case).
0.8m/s for -14dBZ (nominal case). Theoretical limit =0.2m/s
trying from 0.8 to 0.2m/s…
ー20kmー
ー40kmー
ー20kmー
New Ver.
Refined scheme shows improvements in detection of clouds.
former scheme
5-2 Development of CALIPSO-cloud mask; example
Blue : fully attenuated pixel.
Low level cloud detections have been improved in largely attenuated regions by the refined scheme. Katagiri et al., 2017
16
Refined scheme
5-3. Refinement KU-type by MFMSPL
Current algorithm misclassified water as ice in regions where lidar signals are heavily attenuated. It leaded to underestimation of water cloud fraction. Refined algorithm overcomes the issue.
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
Hei
ght [
m]
68x103666462605856
Time
210Cloud particle type for old type
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000H
eigh
t [m
]
68x103666462605856
Time
210Cloud particle type for old type
1:water, 2: ice
Former Refined
waterwaterice
Okamoto et al., 2017a
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Lida
r rat
io
6050403020100
Depolarization ratio [%]
Lser tilt angle=3 deg. 2D-plate with beta=0.5 2D-plate with beta=1 2D-plate with beta=2 2D-column with beta=0.5 2D-column with beta=1.0 2D-column with beta=2.0 Droxtals
Droxtal
Column
Oriented plates
高スペクトル分解ライダと雲粒子タイプ 8
Confidential manuscript submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
12
4.1 CPR Stand-alone Hydrometeor Particle Type 370
The CPR stand-alone algorithm consists of three main steps: (1) initial classification of 371 hydrometeor particle type based on radar reflectivity and temperature, (2) correction for 372 classification of cloud–precipitation, and (3) spatial continuity test. 373
4.1.1 Initial Classification of Hydrometeor Particle Type 374
The hydrometeor type is initially determined based on the relationship of the dominant 375 hydrometeor type with radar reflectivity and temperature. For this purpose, we constructed a type 376 classification diagram that describes the initial guess of hydrometeor type using the relationship 377 (Fig. 4). This was derived from Fig. 2 by selecting the hydrometeor type that gave the highest 378 fractional occurrence exceeding the minimum threshold of 3 u 10-6 at a given radar reflectivity–379 temperature bin. The category of water was further separated according to temperature T into the 380 warm water ( CT qt 0 ) and the supercooled water ( CT q� 0 ). Furthermore, when the fractional 381
occurrence was below the threshold, we assigned rain to CT qt 0 , and snow to CT q� 0 based on 382 the fact that dominance of the precipitation coincides with the low occurrence of CPR/CALIOP 383 detection as argued in Section 3.2. In the next step described in Section 4.1.2, the temperature 384 threshold of 0 qC for rain-snow separation is modified to 2 qC [Liu 2008], in the convective 385 cloud types where falling snows typically reach below 0qC level. The convective cloud types 386
were defined by those with the temperature at the lowest hydrometeor top layer ( LHTTemp ) 387
below 0 qC. 388
389
390
Figure 4. Radar reflectivity–temperature diagram for the initial hydrometeor type classification 391 in the radar algorithm. In the precipitation correction, we modified the 0 qC threshold for rain 392 and snow separation to 2 qC for convective clouds where the temperature at the lowest 393 hydrometeor top was below 0 qC. 394
395
Kikuchi et al., 2017 In press, JGR
Ze-T diagramLidar ratio-dep. diagram
Based on Physical Optics