Articles | Volume 10, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2105-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2105-2017
Research article
 | 
08 Jun 2017
Research article |  | 08 Jun 2017

Differences in liquid cloud droplet effective radius and number concentration estimates between MODIS collections 5.1 and 6 over global oceans

John Rausch, Kerry Meyer, Ralf Bennartz, and Steven Platnick

Related authors

Global and regional estimates of warm cloud droplet number concentration based on 13 years of AQUA-MODIS observations
Ralf Bennartz and John Rausch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 9815–9836, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9815-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9815-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Clouds | Technique: Remote Sensing | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Consideration of the cloud motion for aircraft-based stereographically derived cloud geometry and cloud top heights
Lea Volkmer, Tobias Kölling, Tobias Zinner, and Bernhard Mayer
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6807–6817, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6807-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6807-2024, 2024
Short summary
Exploring the characteristics of Fengyun-4A Advanced Geostationary Radiation Imager (AGRI) visible reflectance using the China Meteorological Administration Mesoscale (CMA-MESO) forecasts and its implications for data assimilation
Yongbo Zhou, Yubao Liu, Wei Han, Yuefei Zeng, Haofei Sun, Peilong Yu, and Lijian Zhu
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6659–6675, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6659-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6659-2024, 2024
Short summary
Validating global horizontal irradiance retrievals from Meteosat SEVIRI at increased spatial resolution against a dense network of ground-based observations
Job I. Wiltink, Hartwig Deneke, Yves-Marie Saint-Drenan, Chiel C. van Heerwaarden, and Jan Fokke Meirink
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6003–6024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6003-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6003-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluating spectral cloud effective radius retrievals from the Enhanced MODIS Airborne Simulator (eMAS) during ORACLES
Kerry Meyer, Steven Platnick, G. Thomas Arnold, Nandana Amarasinghe, Daniel Miller, Jennifer Small-Griswold, Mikael Witte, Brian Cairns, Siddhant Gupta, Greg McFarquhar, and Joseph O'Brien
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2021, 2024
Short summary
Synergistic approach of frozen hydrometeor retrievals: considerations on radiative transfer and model uncertainties in a simulated framework
Ethel Villeneuve, Philippe Chambon, and Nadia Fourrié
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3567–3582, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3567-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3567-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Ahmad, I., Mielonen, T., Grosvenor, D. P., Portin, H. J., Arola, A., Mikkonen, S., Kuhn, T., Leskinen, A., Joutsensaari, J., Komppula, M., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Laaksonen, A., and Romakkaniemi, S.: Long-term measurements of cloud droplet concentrations and aerosol-cloud interactions in continental boundary layer clouds, Tellus B, 65, 20138, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v65i0.20138, 2013.
Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227–1230, 1989.
Baum, B. A., Menzel, W. P., Frey, R. A., Tobin, D. C., Holz, R. E., Ackerman, S. A., Heidinger, A. K., and Yang, P.: MODIS Cloud-Top Property Refinements for Collection 6, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 51, 1145–1163, 2012.
Bennartz, R.: Global assessment of marine boundary layer cloud droplet number concentration from satellite, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D02201, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007547, 2007.
Bennartz, R., Fan, J. W., Rausch, J., Leung, L. R., and Heidinger, A. K.: Pollution from China increases cloud droplet number, suppresses rain over the East China Sea, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09704, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047235, 2011.
Download
Short summary
This paper documents the observed differences in the aggregated (Level-3) cloud droplet effective radius and droplet number concentration estimates inferred from the Aqua–MODIS cloud product collections 5.1 and 6 for warm oceanic cloud scenes over the year 2008. We note significant differences in effective radius and droplet concentration between the two products and discuss the algorithmic and calibration changes which may contribute to observed results.