Articles | Volume 15, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4307-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4307-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact of the revisit frequency on cloud climatology for CALIPSO, EarthCARE, Aeolus, and ICESat-2 satellite lidar missions
Space Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland
Related authors
Andrzej Kotarba
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1500, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1500, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
Short summary
Short summary
Deep convective clouds are difficult to locate precisely in weather satellite images due to viewing-angle distortions. We tested a method that estimates cloud-top heights from infrared temperature data alone — available on weather satellites for over 40 years without need for advanced sensors. The method proved accurate enough to correct these distortions, enabling consistent long-term storm cloud records across all generations of European weather satellites using a single, uniform approach.
Żaneta Nguyen Huu, Andrzej Z. Kotarba, and Agnieszka Wypych
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3897–3915, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3897-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3897-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds affect Earth's energy balance, with high-altitude cirrus clouds contributing to atmospheric warming. While active satellite sensors are the most accurate for detecting cirrus clouds, they are not ideal for long-term studies. This study compares Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) data, testing six MODIS methods, one MODIS-based test, and two International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) tests. The all tests consolidation (ATC) was the most effective, achieving 72.98 % accuracy during daytime and 59.50 % at night, making it relatively accurate for creating a cirrus mask.
Andrzej Z. Kotarba and Izabela Wojciechowska
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 2721–2738, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2721-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2721-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The research investigates methods for detecting deep convective clouds (DCCs) using satellite infrared data, essential for understanding long-term climate trends. By validating three popular detection methods against lidar–radar data, it found moderate accuracy (below 75 %), emphasizing the importance of fine-tuning thresholds regionally. The study shows how small threshold changes significantly affect the climatology of severe storms.
Andrzej Kotarba
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1500, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1500, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
Short summary
Short summary
Deep convective clouds are difficult to locate precisely in weather satellite images due to viewing-angle distortions. We tested a method that estimates cloud-top heights from infrared temperature data alone — available on weather satellites for over 40 years without need for advanced sensors. The method proved accurate enough to correct these distortions, enabling consistent long-term storm cloud records across all generations of European weather satellites using a single, uniform approach.
Żaneta Nguyen Huu, Andrzej Z. Kotarba, and Agnieszka Wypych
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3897–3915, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3897-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3897-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds affect Earth's energy balance, with high-altitude cirrus clouds contributing to atmospheric warming. While active satellite sensors are the most accurate for detecting cirrus clouds, they are not ideal for long-term studies. This study compares Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) data, testing six MODIS methods, one MODIS-based test, and two International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) tests. The all tests consolidation (ATC) was the most effective, achieving 72.98 % accuracy during daytime and 59.50 % at night, making it relatively accurate for creating a cirrus mask.
Andrzej Z. Kotarba and Izabela Wojciechowska
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 2721–2738, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2721-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2721-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The research investigates methods for detecting deep convective clouds (DCCs) using satellite infrared data, essential for understanding long-term climate trends. By validating three popular detection methods against lidar–radar data, it found moderate accuracy (below 75 %), emphasizing the importance of fine-tuning thresholds regionally. The study shows how small threshold changes significantly affect the climatology of severe storms.
Cited articles
Ackerman, S. A., Holz, R. E., Frey, R., Eloranta, E. W., Maddux, B. C., and
McGill, M.: Cloud detection with MODIS. Part II: Validation, J. Atmos.
Ocean. Technol., 25, 1073–1086, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JTECHA1053.1, 2008.
Adhikari, L., Wang, Z., and Deng, M.: Seasonal variations of Antarctic clouds
observed by CloudSat and CALIPSO satellites, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
117, D04202, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016719, 2012.
Benas, N., Finkensieper, S., Stengel, M., van Zadelhoff, G.-J., Hanschmann, T., Hollmann, R., and Meirink, J. F.: The MSG-SEVIRI-based cloud property data record CLAAS-2, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 415–434, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-415-2017, 2017.
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J.-L.,
Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John,
V. O.: COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment, Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1, 2011.
Boudala, F. S. and Milbrandt, J. A.: Evaluations of the Climatologies of
Three Latest Cloud Satellite Products Based on Passive Sensors (ISCCP-H, Two
CERES) against the CALIPSO-GOCCP, Remote Sens., 13, 5150,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13245150, 2021.
Braun, B. M., Sweetser, T. H., Graham, C., and Bartsch, J.: CloudSat's
A-Train Exit and the Formation of the C-Train: An Orbital Dynamics
Perspective, in: IEEE Aerosp. Conf. Proc., Big Sky, Montana, USA, 2–9 March 2019, CFP19AAC-POD, 4708–4717, ISBN 978-1-5386-6855-9, 2019.
Capderou, M.: Motion of Orbit, Earth and Sun, in: Satellites: Orbits
and Missions, Springer, Paris, 129–173, ISBN 978-2287213175, 2005.
Chepfer, H., Bony, S., Winker, D., Chiriaco, M., Dufresne, J.-L., and Sèze, G.: Use of CALIPSO lidar observations to evaluate the cloudiness
simulated by a climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L15704,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034207, 2008.
Chepfer, H., Bony, S., Winker, D., Cesana, G., Dufresne, J. L., Minnis, P.,
Stubenrauch, C. J., and Zeng, S.: The GCM-oriented CALIPSO cloud product
(CALIPSO-GOCCP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D00H16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012251,
2010.
Daisuke, S., Trung, N. T., Rei, M., Yoshito, S., Tadashi, I., and Toshiyoshi,
K.: Progress of the ISS Based Vegetation LiDAR Mission, Moli – Japan's First
Space-Based LiDAR, in: IGARSS 2020, 2020 IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Se., virtual, 26 September–2 October 2020, 3467–3470, https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS39084.2020.9323332, 2020.
DiCiccio, T. J. and Efron, B.: Bootstrap confidence intervals, Stat. Sci., 11, 189–228,
https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1032280214, 1996.
Ehret, G., Bousquet, P., Pierangelo, C.,
Alpers, M., Millet, B., Abshire, J. B., Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P.,
Chevallier, F., Ciais, P., Crevoisier, C., Fix, A., Flamant, P.,
Frankenberg, C., Gibert, F., Heim, B., Heimann, M., Houweling, S.,
Hubberten, H. W., Jöckel, P., Law, K., Löw, A., Marshall, J.,
Agusti-Panareda, A., Payan, S., Prigent, C., Rairoux, P., Sachs, T.,
Scholze, M., and Wirth, M.: MERLIN: A French-German Space Lidar Mission
Dedicated to Atmospheric Methane, Remote Sens., 9, 1052,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9101052, 2017.
Finkensieper, S., Meirink, J.-F., van Zadelhoff, G.-J., Hanschmann, T., Benas, N., Stengel, M., Fuchs, P., Hollmann, R., Kaiser, J., and Werscheck, M.: CLAAS-2.1: CM SAF CLoud property dAtAset using SEVIRI – Edition 2.1, Satellite Application Facility on Climate Monitoring [data set], https://doi.org/10.5676/EUM_SAF_CM/CLAAS/V002_01, 2020.
Flamant, P., Cuesta, J., Denneulin, M.-L., Dabas, A., and Huber, D.:
ADM-Aeolus retrieval algorithms for aerosol and cloud products, Tellus A
Dyn. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 60, 273–286,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00287.x, 2008.
Franklin, C. N., Sun, Z., Bi, D., Dix, M., Yan, H., and Bodas-Salcedo, A.:
Evaluation of clouds in ACCESS using the satellite simulator package COSP:
Global, seasonal, and regional cloud properties, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
118, 732–748, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018469, 2013.
Heidinger, A. K., Evan, A. T., Foster, M. J., and Walther, A.: A naive
Bayesian cloud-detection scheme derived from Calipso and applied within
PATMOS-x, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 51, 1129–1144,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-02.1, 2012.
Holz, R. E., Ackerman, S. A., Nagle, F. W., Frey, R., Dutcher, S., Kuehn, R.
E., Vaughan, M. A., and Baum, B.: Global Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) cloud detection and height evaluation using
CALIOP, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D00A19, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009837, 2009.
Hunt, W. H., Vaughan, M. A., Powell, K. A., and Weimer, C.: CALIPSO lidar
description and performance assessment, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 26,
1214–1228, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1223.1, 2009.
Illingworth, A. J., Barker, H. W., Beljaars, A., Ceccaldi, M., Chepfer, H.,
Clerbaux, N., Cole, J., Delanoë, J., Domenech, C., Donovan, D. P.,
Fukuda, S., Hirakata, M., Hogan, R. J., Huenerbein, A., Kollias, P., Kubota,
T., Nakajima, T., Nakajima, T. Y., Nishizawa, T., Ohno, Y., Okamoto, H.,
Oki, R., Sato, K., Satoh, M., Shephard, M. W., Velázquez-Blázquez,
A., Wandinger, U., Wehr, T., and Van Zadelhoff, G. J.: The earthcare
satellite: The next step forward in global measurements of clouds,
aerosols, precipitation, and radiation, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96,
1311–1332, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00227.1, 2015.
Kodama, C., Noda, A. T., and Satoh, M.: An assessment of the cloud signals
simulated by NICAM using ISCCP, CALIPSO, and CloudSat satellite simulators,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D12210, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017317, 2012.
Konsta, D., Dufresne, J.-L., Chepfer, H., Idelkadi, A., and Cesana, G.: Use
of A-train satellite observations (CALIPSO–PARASOL) to evaluate tropical
cloud properties in the LMDZ5 GCM, Clim. Dyn., 47, 1263–1284,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2900-y, 2016.
Kotarba, A. Z.: Calibration of global MODIS cloud amount using CALIOP cloud profiles, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 4995–5012, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-4995-2020, 2020.
Kotarba, A. Z. and Solecki, M.: Uncertainty Assessment of the
Vertically-Resolved Cloud Amount for Joint CloudSat–CALIPSO Radar–Lidar
Observations, Remote Sens., 13, 807, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040807, 2021.
Liu, Y., Ackerman, S. A., Maddux, B. C., Key, J. R., and Frey, R. A.: Errors
in cloud detection over the arctic using a satellite imager and implications
for observing feedback mechanisms, J. Clim., 23, 1894–1907,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3386.1, 2010.
Liu, Y., Key, J. R., Ackerman, S. A., Mace, G. G., and Zhang, Q.: Arctic
cloud macrophysical characteristics from CloudSat and CALIPSO, Remote Sens.
Environ., 124, 159–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.05.006, 2012.
Liu, Z., Vaughan, M., Winker, D., Kittaka, C., Getzewich, B., Kuehn, R.,
Omar, A., Powell, K., Trepte, C., and Hostetler, C.: The CALIPSO lidar cloud
and aerosol discrimination: Version 2 algorithm and initial assessment of
performance, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1229.1, 2009.
Ma, X., Bartlett, K., Harmon, K., and Yu, F.: Comparison of AOD between CALIPSO and MODIS: significant differences over major dust and biomass burning regions, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2391–2401, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2391-2013, 2013.
Mace, G. G. and Zhang, Q.: The CloudSat radar-lidar geometrical profile
product (RL-GeoProf): Updates, improvements, and selected results, J.
Geophys. Res., 119, 9441–9462, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021374, 2014.
Mace, G. G., Zhang, Q., Vaughan, M., Marchand, R., Stephens, G., Trepte, C., and Winker, D.: A description of hydrometeor layer occurrence statistics
derived from the first year of merged Cloudsat and CALIPSO data, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 114, D00A26, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009755, 2009.
Markus, T., Neumann, T., Martino, A., Abdalati, W., Brunt, K., Csatho, B.,
Farrell, S., Fricker, H., Gardner, A., Harding, D., Jasinski, M., Kwok, R.,
Magruder, L., Lubin, D., Luthcke, S., Morison, J., Nelson, R.,
Neuenschwander, A., Palm, S., Popescu, S., Shum, C. K., Schutz, B. E.,
Smith, B., Yang, Y., and Zwally, J.: The Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation
Satellite-2 (ICESat-2): Science requirements, concept, and implementation,
Remote Sens. Environ., 190, 260–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.029, 2017.
Nazaryan, H., McCormick, M. P., and Menzel, W. P.: Global characterization of
cirrus clouds using CALIPSO data, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D16211, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009481, 2008.
Noel, V., Chepfer, H., Chiriaco, M., and Yorks, J.: The diurnal cycle of cloud profiles over land and ocean between 51∘ S and 51∘ N, seen by the CATS spaceborne lidar from the International Space Station, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 9457–9473, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9457-2018, 2018.
Ohring, G., Wielicki, B., Spencer, R., Emery, B., and Datla, R.: Satellite
instrument calibration for measuring global climate change: Report of a
workshop, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 1303–1314, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-9-1303, 2005.
Okamoto, H. and Sato, K.: Cloud Remote Sensing by Active Sensors: New
Perspectives from CloudSat, CALIPSO and EarthCARE BT – Remote Sensing of
Clouds and Precipitation, 1st edn., edited by: Andronache, C., Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 195–214, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72583-3, 2018.
Oreopoulos, L., Cho, N., and Lee, D.: New insights about cloud vertical
structure from CloudSat and CALIPSO observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 9280–9300,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026629, 2017.
Palm, S. P., Yang, Y., Herzfeld, U., Hancock, D., Hayes, A., Selmer, P.,
Hart, W., and Hlavka, D.: ICESat-2 Atmospheric Channel Description, Data
Processing and First Results, Earth Sp. Sci., 8, e2020EA001470,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001470, 2021.
Stengel, M., Kniffka, A., Meirink, J. F., Lockhoff, M., Tan, J., and Hollmann, R.: CLAAS: the CM SAF cloud property data set using SEVIRI, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 4297–4311, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4297-2014, 2014.
Stephens, G., Freeman, A., Richard, E., Pilewskie, P., Larkin, P., Chew, C.,
Tanelli, S., Brown, S., Posselt, D., and Peral, E.: The Emerging
Technological Revolution in Earth Observations, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.,
101, E274–E285, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0146.1, 2020.
Stephens, G. L.: Cloud Feedbacks in the Climate System: A Critical Review,
J. Clim., 18, 237–273, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-3243.1, 2005.
Stephens, G. L. and Kummerow, C. D.: The Remote Sensing of Clouds and
Precipitation from Space: A Review, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 3742–3765,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2006JAS2375.1, 2007.
Stoffelen, A., Pailleux, J., Källén, E., Vaughan, J. M., Isaksen,
L., Flamant, P., Wergen, W., Andersson, E., Schyberg, H., Culoma, A.,
Meynart, R., Endemann, M., and Ingmann, P.: The Atmospheric Dynamics Mission
For Global Wind Field Measurement, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 73–88,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-73, 2005.
Tang, H., Armston, J., Hancock, S., Marselis, S., Goetz, S., and Dubayah, R.:
Characterizing global forest canopy cover distribution using spaceborne
lidar, Remote Sens. Environ., 231, 111262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111262,
2019.
Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., and Kiehl, J.: Earth's global energy
budget, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 311–323,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1, 2009.
Vaughan, M. A., Powell, K. A., Kuehn, R. E., Young, S. A., Winker, D. M.,
Hostetler, C. A., Hunt, W. H., Liu, Z., Mcgill, M. J., and Getzewich, B. J.:
Fully automated detection of cloud and aerosol layers in the CALIPSO lidar
measurements, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 26, 2034–2050,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1228.1, 2009.
Wang, T., Fetzer, E. J., Wong, S., Kahn, B. H., and Yue, Q.: Validation of
MODIS cloud mask and multilayer flag using CloudSat-CALIPSO cloud profiles
and a cross-reference of their cloud classifications, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
121, 11620–11635, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025239, 2016.
Winker, D., Chepfer, H., Noel, V., and Cai, X.: Observational Constraints on
Cloud Feedbacks: The Role of Active Satellite Sensors, Surv. Geophys., 38, 1483–1508,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-017-9452-0, 2017.
Winker, D. M., Pelon, J. R., and McCormick, M. P.: The CALIPSO mission:
spaceborne lidar for observation of aerosols and clouds, Lidar Remote Sens.
Ind. Environ. Monit. III, 4893, 1, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.466539,
2003.
World Meteorological Organization: Systematic Observation Requirements for
Satellite-based Products for Climate – Supplemental details to the
satellite-based component of the “Implementation Plan for the Global
Observing System for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC (2010 update)”, GCOS – 154,
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3710 (last access: 21 June 2022), 2011.
Wylie, D., Eloranta, E., Spinhirne, J. D., and Palm, S. P.: A comparison of
cloud cover statistics from the GLAS lidar with HIRS, J. Clim., 20, 4968–4981,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4269.1, 2007.
Yorks, J. E., McGill, M. J., Palm, S.P. , Hlavka, D. L. , Selmer, P.A. ,
Nowottnick, E. , Vaughan, M. A. , Rodier, S., and Hart W. D.: An Overview of
the CATS Level 1 Data Products and Processing Algorithms, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 43, 4632–4639, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068006, 2016.
Yorks, J. E., Selmer, P. A., Kupchock, A., Nowottnick, E. P., Christian, K.
E., Rusinek, D., Dacic, N., and McGill, M. J.: Aerosol and Cloud Detection
Using Machine Learning Algorithms and Space-Based Lidar Data, Atmosphere,
12, 606, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12050606, 2021.
Short summary
Space profiling lidars offer a unique insight into cloud properties in Earth’s atmosphere, and are considered the most reliable source of cloud information. However, lidar-based cloud climatologies are infrequently sampled: every 7 to 91 d, and only along the ground track. This study evaluated how accurate are the cloud data from existing (CALIPSO, ICESat-2, Aeolus) and planned (EarthCARE) space lidars, when compared to a cloud climatology obtained with observations taken every day.
Space profiling lidars offer a unique insight into cloud properties in Earth’s atmosphere, and...