Articles | Volume 17, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5765-2024
© Author(s) 2024. 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-17-5765-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Supercooled liquid water cloud classification using lidar backscatter peak properties
Luke Edgar Whitehead
School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Aotearoa / New Zealand
Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Adrian James McDonald
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Aotearoa / New Zealand
Adrien Guyot
Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Related authors
No articles found.
Alberto Alonso-Pinar, Jean-Baptiste Filippi, Adrien Guyot, Nicholas McCarthy, Pierre Tulet, and Alexander Filkov
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4855, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4855, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Wildfires can spread quickly when firebrands are carried by wind to ignite new fires, a process known as spotting. Predicting this process is vital for safety and firefighting, but it is difficult to model. This paper introduces a new, faster way to simulate spotting using a coupled fire–atmosphere model. Tested on real and ideal cases, our approach reproduced realistic fire spread and timing, showing promise for faster, more reliable forecasts to support wildfire management and decision-making.
Yusuf A. Bhatti, Laura E. Revell, Alex J. Schuddeboom, Adrian J. McDonald, Alex T. Archibald, Jonny Williams, Abhijith U. Venugopal, Catherine Hardacre, and Erik Behrens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15181–15196, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15181-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15181-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are a large source of uncertainty over the Southern Ocean. A dominant source of sulfate aerosol in this region is dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which is poorly simulated by climate models. We show the sensitivity of simulated atmospheric DMS to the choice of oceanic DMS data set and emission scheme. We show that oceanic DMS has twice the influence on atmospheric DMS than the emission scheme. Simulating DMS more accurately in climate models will help to constrain aerosol uncertainty.
Zhangcheng Pei, Sonya L. Fiddes, W. John R. French, Simon P. Alexander, Marc D. Mallet, Peter Kuma, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14691–14714, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14691-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14691-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we use ground-based observations to evaluate a climate model and a satellite product in simulating surface radiation and investigate how radiation biases are influenced by cloud properties over the Southern Ocean. We find that significant radiation biases exist in both the model and satellite. The cloud fraction and cloud occurrence play an important role in affecting radiation biases. We suggest further development for the model and satellite using ground-based observations.
Adrien Guyot, Jordan P. Brook, Alain Protat, Kathryn Turner, Joshua Soderholm, Nicholas F. McCarthy, and Hamish McGowan
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4571–4588, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4571-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4571-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a new method that should facilitate the use of weather radars to study wildfires. It is important to be able to identify the particles emitted by wildfires on radar, but it is difficult because there are many other echoes on radar like clear air, the ground, sea clutter, and precipitation. We came up with a two-step process to classify these echoes. Our method is accurate and can be used by fire departments in emergencies or by scientists for research.
McKenna W. Stanford, Ann M. Fridlind, Israel Silber, Andrew S. Ackerman, Greg Cesana, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Alain Protat, Simon Alexander, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9037–9069, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9037-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9037-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds play an important role in the Earth’s climate system as they modulate the amount of radiation that either reaches the surface or is reflected back to space. This study demonstrates an approach to robustly evaluate surface-based observations against a large-scale model. We find that the large-scale model precipitates too infrequently relative to observations, contrary to literature documentation suggesting otherwise based on satellite measurements.
Peter Kuma, Frida A.-M. Bender, Alex Schuddeboom, Adrian J. McDonald, and Øyvind Seland
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 523–549, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-523-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-523-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a machine learning method for determining cloud types in climate model output and satellite observations based on ground observations of cloud genera. We analyse cloud type biases and changes with temperature in climate models and show that the bias is anticorrelated with climate sensitivity. Models simulating decreasing stratiform and increasing cumuliform clouds with increased CO2 concentration tend to have higher climate sensitivity than models simulating the opposite tendencies.
Adrien Guyot, Alain Protat, Simon P. Alexander, Andrew R. Klekociuk, Peter Kuma, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3663–3681, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3663-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3663-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Ceilometers are instruments that are widely deployed as part of operational networks. They are usually not able to detect cloud phase. Here, we propose an evaluation of various methods to detect supercooled liquid water with ceilometer observations, using an extensive dataset from Davis, Antarctica. Our results highlight the possibility for ceilometers to detect supercooled liquid water in clouds.
Alex R. Aves, Laura E. Revell, Sally Gaw, Helena Ruffell, Alex Schuddeboom, Ngaire E. Wotherspoon, Michelle LaRue, and Adrian J. McDonald
The Cryosphere, 16, 2127–2145, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2127-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2127-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study confirms the presence of microplastics in Antarctic snow, highlighting the extent of plastic pollution globally. Fresh snow was collected from Ross Island, Antarctica, and subsequent analysis identified an average of 29 microplastic particles per litre of melted snow. The most likely source of these airborne microplastics is local scientific research stations; however, modelling shows their origin could have been up to 6000 km away.
Stefanie Kremser, Mike Harvey, Peter Kuma, Sean Hartery, Alexia Saint-Macary, John McGregor, Alex Schuddeboom, Marc von Hobe, Sinikka T. Lennartz, Alex Geddes, Richard Querel, Adrian McDonald, Maija Peltola, Karine Sellegri, Israel Silber, Cliff S. Law, Connor J. Flynn, Andrew Marriner, Thomas C. J. Hill, Paul J. DeMott, Carson C. Hume, Graeme Plank, Geoffrey Graham, and Simon Parsons
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3115–3153, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3115-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3115-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol–cloud interactions over the Southern Ocean are poorly understood and remain a major source of uncertainty in climate models. This study presents ship-borne measurements, collected during a 6-week voyage into the Southern Ocean in 2018, that are an important supplement to satellite-based measurements. For example, these measurements include data on low-level clouds and aerosol composition in the marine boundary layer, which can be used in climate model evaluation efforts.
Ethan R. Dale, Stefanie Kremser, Jordis S. Tradowsky, Greg E. Bodeker, Leroy J. Bird, Gustavo Olivares, Guy Coulson, Elizabeth Somervell, Woodrow Pattinson, Jonathan Barte, Jan-Niklas Schmidt, Nariefa Abrahim, Adrian J. McDonald, and Peter Kuma
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2053–2075, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2053-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2053-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
MAPM is a project whose goal is to develop a method to infer particulate matter (PM) emissions maps from PM concentration measurements. In support of MAPM, we conducted a winter field campaign in New Zealand. In addition to two types of instruments measuring PM, an array of other meteorological sensors were deployed, measuring temperature and wind speed as well as probing the vertical structure of the lower atmosphere. In this article, we present the measurements taken during this campaign.
Peter Kuma, Adrian J. McDonald, Olaf Morgenstern, Richard Querel, Israel Silber, and Connor J. Flynn
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 43–72, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-43-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-43-2021, 2021
Cited articles
Alexander, S. P. and Protat, A.: Cloud Properties Observed From the Surface and by Satellite at the Northern Edge of the Southern Ocean, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 443–456, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026552, 2018. a
Bhatti, Y. A., Revell, L. E., Schuddeboom, A. J., McDonald, A. J., Archibald, A. T., Williams, J., Venugopal, A. U., Hardacre, C., and Behrens, E.: The sensitivity of Southern Ocean atmospheric dimethyl sulfide (DMS) to modeled oceanic DMS concentrations and emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15181–15196, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15181-2023, 2023. a
Blanchard, Y., Pelon, J., Eloranta, E. W., Moran, K. P., Delanoë, J., and Sèze, G.: A Synergistic Analysis of Cloud Cover and Vertical Distribution from A-Train and Ground-Based Sensors over the High Arctic Station Eureka from 2006 to 2010, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 53, 2553–2570, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0021.1, 2014. a
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Hill, P. G., Furtado, K., Williams, K. D., Field, P. R., Manners, J. C., Hyder, P., and Kato, S.: Large Contribution of Supercooled Liquid Clouds to the Solar Radiation Budget of the Southern Ocean, J. Climate, 29, 4213–4228, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0564.1, 2016. a
Brodersen, K. H., Ong, C. S., Stephan, K. E., and Buhmann, J. M.: The Balanced Accuracy and Its Posterior Distribution, in: 2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Istanbul, Turkey, 23–26 August 2010, 3121–3124, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2010.764, 2010. a
Chen, T. and Guestrin, C.: XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System, in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 785–794, ISBN 978-1-4503-4232-2, https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785, 2016. a, b, c
Chubb, T. H., Jensen, J. B., Siems, S. T., and Manton, M. J.: In situ observations of supercooled liquid clouds over the Southern Ocean during the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observation campaigns, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 5280–5285, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50986, 2013. a
DeMott, P. J. and Rogers, D. C.: Freezing Nucleation Rates of Dilute Solution Droplets Measured between −30° and −40 °C in Laboratory Simulations of Natural Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 1056–1064, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047<1056:FNRODS>2.0.CO;2, 1990. a, b
Emeis, S.: Basic Principles of Surface-Based Remote Sensing, in: Surface-Based Remote Sensing of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer, edited by Emeis, S., Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences Library, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 33–71, ISBN 978-90-481-9340-0, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9340-0_3, 2011. a
Forbes, R. M. and Ahlgrimm, M.: On the Representation of High-Latitude Boundary Layer Mixed-Phase Cloud in the ECMWF Global Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 3425–3445, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00325.1, 2014. a
Griesche, H. J., Barrientos-Velasco, C., Deneke, H., Hünerbein, A., Seifert, P., and Macke, A.: Low-level Arctic clouds: a blind zone in our knowledge of the radiation budget, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 597–612, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-597-2024, 2024. a
Guyot, A., Protat, A., Alexander, S. P., Klekociuk, A. R., Kuma, P., and McDonald, A.: Detection of supercooled liquid water containing clouds with ceilometers: development and evaluation of deterministic and data-driven retrievals, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3663–3681, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3663-2022, 2022. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, ab, ac, ad, ae
Hines, K. M. and Bromwich, D. H.: Development and Testing of Polar Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model. Part I: Greenland Ice Sheet Meteorology, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 1971–1989, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2112.1, 2008. a
Hogan, R. J. and Illingworth, A. J.: A climatology of supercooled layer clouds from lidar ceilometer data, in: CLARE'98 Final workshop, Noordwijk, the Netherlands, 13–14 September 1999, 161–165, http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~swrhgnrj/publications/RJH_LayerClimatology.pdf (last access: 24 September 2024), 1999, a
Hogan, R. J. and Illingworth, A. J.: The effect of specular reflection on spaceborne lidar measurements of ice clouds, Report of the ESA Retrieval algorithm for EarthCARE project, Citeseer, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=08e731c7a59b311ac74bc8838774e6db50082434 (last access: 24 September 2024), 2003. a, b
Hogan, R. J. and O’Connor, E. J.: Facilitating cloud radar and lidar algorithms: the Cloudnet Instrument Synergy/Target Categorization product, Cloudnet documentation, 14, http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~swrhgnrj/publications/categorization.pdf (last access: 24 September 2024), 2004. a
Hogan, R. J., Illingworth, A. J., O'connor, E. J., and Baptista, J. P. V. P.: Characteristics of mixed-phase clouds. II: A climatology from ground-based lidar, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 129, 2117–2134, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.01.209, 2003. a, b
Hogan, R. J., Behera, M. D., O'Connor, E. J., and Illingworth, A. J.: Estimate of the global distribution of stratiform supercooled liquid water clouds using the LITE lidar, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L05106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018977, 2004. a
Hoose, C. and Möhler, O.: Heterogeneous ice nucleation on atmospheric aerosols: a review of results from laboratory experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9817–9854, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9817-2012, 2012. a
Hu, Y., Rodier, S., Xu, K.-m., Sun, W., Huang, J., Lin, B., Zhai, P., and Josset, D.: Occurrence, liquid water content, and fraction of supercooled water clouds from combined CALIOP/IIR/MODIS measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D00H34, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012384, 2010. a
Huang, Y., Siems, S. T., Manton, M. J., Protat, A., and Delanoë, J.: A study on the low-altitude clouds over the Southern Ocean using the DARDAR-MASK, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D18204, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017800, 2012. a
Hyder, P., Edwards, J. M., Allan, R. P., Hewitt, H. T., Bracegirdle, T. J., Gregory, J. M., Wood, R. A., Meijers, A. J. S., Mulcahy, J., Field, P., Furtado, K., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Williams, K. D., Copsey, D., Josey, S. A., Liu, C., Roberts, C. D., Sanchez, C., Ridley, J., Thorpe, L., Hardiman, S. C., Mayer, M., Berry, D. I., and Belcher, S. E.: Critical Southern Ocean climate model biases traced to atmospheric model cloud errors, Nat. Commun., 9, 3625, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05634-2, 2018. a
Illingworth, A. J., Hogan, R. J., O'Connor, E. J., Bouniol, D., Brooks, M. E., Delanoé, J., Donovan, D. P., Eastment, J. D., Gaussiat, N., Goddard, J. W. F., Haeffelin, M., Baltink, H. K., Krasnov, O. A., Pelon, J., Piriou, J.-M., Protat, A., Russchenberg, H. W. J., Seifert, A., Tompkins, A. M., Zadelhoff, G.-J. v., Vinit, F., Willén, U., Wilson, D. R., and Wrench, C. L.: Cloudnet: Continuous Evaluation of Cloud Profiles in Seven Operational Models Using Ground-Based Observations, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 883–898, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-6-883, 2007. a, b
Khain, A. P. and Pinsky, M.: Physical Processes in Clouds and Cloud Modeling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 978-0-521-76743-9, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139049481, 2018. a
Kremser, S., Harvey, M., Kuma, P., Hartery, S., Saint-Macary, A., McGregor, J., Schuddeboom, A., von Hobe, M., Lennartz, S. T., Geddes, A., Querel, R., McDonald, A., Peltola, M., Sellegri, K., Silber, I., Law, C. S., Flynn, C. J., Marriner, A., Hill, T. C. J., DeMott, P. J., Hume, C. C., Plank, G., Graham, G., and Parsons, S.: Southern Ocean cloud and aerosol data: a compilation of measurements from the 2018 Southern Ocean Ross Sea Marine Ecosystems and Environment voyage, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3115–3153, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3115-2021, 2021. a
Kuma, P., McDonald, A. J., Morgenstern, O., Alexander, S. P., Cassano, J. J., Garrett, S., Halla, J., Hartery, S., Harvey, M. J., Parsons, S., Plank, G., Varma, V., and Williams, J.: Evaluation of Southern Ocean cloud in the HadGEM3 general circulation model and MERRA-2 reanalysis using ship-based observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 6607–6630, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-6607-2020, 2020. a
Kuma, P., McDonald, A. J., Morgenstern, O., Querel, R., Silber, I., and Flynn, C. J.: Automatic Lidar and Ceilometer Framework (ALCF), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5153867, 2021a. a
Kuma, P., McDonald, A. J., Morgenstern, O., Querel, R., Silber, I., and Flynn, C. J.: Ground-based lidar processing and simulator framework for comparing models and observations (ALCF 1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 43–72, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-43-2021, 2021b. a, b, c
Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Stewart, S. A., Tan, I., Welton, E. J., and Lolli, S.: Determining cloud thermodynamic phase from the polarized Micro Pulse Lidar, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 6901–6913, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6901-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d
Liu, Y., Shupe, M. D., Wang, Z., and Mace, G.: Cloud vertical distribution from combined surface and space radar–lidar observations at two Arctic atmospheric observatories, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5973–5989, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5973-2017, 2017. a
Lundberg, S. M. and Lee, S.-I.: A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, Curran Associates, Inc., https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/8a20a8621978632d76c43dfd28b67767-Abstract.html (last access: 24 September 2024), 2017. a
Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., and Lee, S.-I.: From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees, Nature Machine Intelligence, 2, 56–67, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9, 2020. a, b
Mason, S., Fletcher, J. K., Haynes, J. M., Franklin, C., Protat, A., and Jakob, C.: A Hybrid Cloud Regime Methodology Used to Evaluate Southern Ocean Cloud and Shortwave Radiation Errors in ACCESS, J. Climate, 28, 6001–6018, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00846.1, 2015. a
Mather, J. H. and Voyles, J. W.: The Arm Climate Research Facility: A Review of Structure and Capabilities, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 377–392, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00218.1, 2013. a
McErlich, C., McDonald, A., Schuddeboom, A., and Silber, I.: Comparing Satellite- and Ground-Based Observations of Cloud Occurrence Over High Southern Latitudes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033607, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033607, 2021. a, b
Morrison, A. E., Siems, S. T., and Manton, M. J.: A Three-Year Climatology of Cloud-Top Phase over the Southern Ocean and North Pacific, J. Climate, 24, 2405–2418, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3842.1, 2011. a
Murray, B. J., O'Sullivan, D., Atkinson, J. D., and Webb, M.: Ice nucleation by particles immersed in supercooled cloud droplets, Chem. Soc. Rev., 41, 6519–6554, https://doi.org/10.1039/C2CS35200A, 2012. a, b
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825–2830, 2011. a
Pei, Z., Fiddes, S. L., French, W. J. R., Alexander, S. P., Mallet, M. D., Kuma, P., and McDonald, A.: Assessing the cloud radiative bias at Macquarie Island in the ACCESS-AM2 model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14691–14714, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14691-2023, 2023. a
Powers, J. G., Manning, K. W., Bromwich, D. H., Cassano, J. J., and Cayette, A. M.: A Decade of Antarctic Science Support Through Amps, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1699–1712, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00186.1, 2012. a
Protat, A., Young, S. A., McFarlane, S. A., L’Ecuyer, T., Mace, G. G., Comstock, J. M., Long, C. N., Berry, E., and Delanoë, J.: Reconciling Ground-Based and Space-Based Estimates of the Frequency of Occurrence and Radiative Effect of Clouds around Darwin, Australia, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 53, 456–478, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-072.1, 2014. a
Ricaud, P., Del Guasta, M., Lupi, A., Roehrig, R., Bazile, E., Durand, P., Attié, J.-L., Nicosia, A., and Grigioni, P.: Supercooled liquid water clouds observed over Dome C, Antarctica: temperature sensitivity and cloud radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 613–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-613-2024, 2024. a
Russell, S. and Norvig, P.: Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edition, Pearson, ISBN 9780132071482, 2010. a
Sassen, K.: The Polarization Lidar Technique for Cloud Research: A Review and Current Assessment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 72, 1848–1866, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1991)072<1848:TPLTFC>2.0.CO;2, 1991. a, b, c
Schotland, R. M., Sassen, K., and Stone, R.: Observations by Lidar of Linear Depolarization Ratios for Hydrometeors, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 10, 1011–1017, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1971)010<1011:OBLOLD>2.0.CO;2, 1971. a
Schuddeboom, A. J. and McDonald, A. J.: The Southern Ocean Radiative Bias, Cloud Compensating Errors, and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD035310, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035310, 2021. a
Tukiainen, S., O'Connor, E., and Korpinen, A.: CloudnetPy: A Python package for processing cloud remote sensing data, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2123, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02123, 2020. a
UCAR: The Antarctic Mesoscale Prediction System, UCAR [data set], https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/rt/amps/wrf_grib/, last access: 24 September 2024. a
Vergara-Temprado, J., Miltenberger, A. K., Furtado, K., Grosvenor, D. P., Shipway, B. J., Hill, A. A., Wilkinson, J. M., Field, P. R., Murray, B. J., and Carslaw, K. S.: Strong control of Southern Ocean cloud reflectivity by ice-nucleating particles, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 115, 2687, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721627115, 2018. a
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J., Polat, İ., Feng, Y., Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, J., Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Quintero, E. A., Harris, C. R., Archibald, A. M., Ribeiro, A. H., Pedregosa, F., van Mulbregt, P., and SciPy 1.0 Contributors: SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nat. Methods, 17, 261–272, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2, 2020. a
Whitehead, L. E. and McDonald, A.: MiniMPL data for “Supercooled liquid water cloud classification using lidar backscatter peak properties”, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13331220, 2024. a
Short summary
Supercooled liquid water cloud is important to represent in weather and climate models, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. Previous work has developed a new machine learning method for measuring supercooled liquid water in Antarctic clouds using simple lidar observations. We evaluate this technique using a lidar dataset from Christchurch, New Zealand, and develop an updated algorithm for accurate supercooled liquid water detection at mid-latitudes.
Supercooled liquid water cloud is important to represent in weather and climate models,...