Articles | Volume 17, issue 24
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-7027-2024
© 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-17-7027-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
16 Dec 2024
Research article |
| 16 Dec 2024
| 16 Dec 2024
3D cloud masking across a broad swath using multi-angle polarimetry and deep learning
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 616, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Goddard Earth Sciences Technology and Research (GESTAR) II, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Kirk D. Knobelspiesse
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 616, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Andrew M. Sayer
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 616, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Goddard Earth Sciences Technology and Research (GESTAR) II, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 616, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Greenbelt, MD, USA
James Hays
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Judy Hoffman
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Zihao Yuan, Bastiaan van Diedenhoven, Guangliang Fu, J. Vanderlei Martins, Andrew M. Sayer, Chamara Rajapakshe, Brian Cairns, Hai Xiang Lin, Jan Willem Erisman, and Otto P. Hasekamp
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5631, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5631, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a systematic intercomparison of cloud droplet effective radius and effective variance from the PACE instruments SPEXone, HARP-2, and OCI. Comparison of one-year data shows reasonable consistency, but also show clear systematic differences. The comparison establishes a baseline understanding of PACE cloud retrieval performance, gives insight into retrieval uncertainties, and provides a guideline for using multi-instrument PACE data sets in aerosol–cloud interaction studies.
Kirk D. Knobelspiesse, Ivona Cetinić, Brian Cairns, Samuel E. Leblanc, Rei Ueyama, and the PACE-PAX team
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-541, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-541, 2026
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
We present data collected for validation of atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial data products produced by the NASA Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) and JAXA/ESA Earth, Cloud, Aerosol and Radiation Explorer (EarthCARE) missions. Our field campaign, called the PACE Postlaunch Airborne Experiment (PACE-PAX) was carried out in September of 2024 with two instrumented aircraft, several ocean research vessels and more. Data are free and available to the public.
Nick Schutgens, Elisabeth J. Andrews, Antti Arola, Yusuf Bhatti, Guanliang Fu, Otto Hasekamp, Pekka Kolmonen, Antti Lipponen, Tero Mielonen, Leighton Reygare, and Andrew M. Sayer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2656, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2656, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol are fine particles in the air that affect public health and the climate. We develop a new method to study aerosol through patterns (called autocorrelations) in their time-series. We show that autocorrelations are linked to aerosol deposition processes and contain information on the important but uncertain aerosol lifetime. Autocorrelations can be observed from satellites and we provide the first ever global climatology of aerosol autocorrelations.
Andrew M. Sayer, Brian Cairns, Kirk D. Knobelspiesse, Luca Lelli, Chamara Rajapakshe, Scott E. Giangrande, Gareth E. Thomas, and Damao Zhang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 6681–6703, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-6681-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-6681-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites can estimate cloud height in several ways: two include a thermal technique (colder clouds being higher up), and another looking at colours of light that oxygen in the atmosphere absorbs (darker clouds being lower down). It can also be measured (from ground or space) by radar and lidar. We compare satellite data we developed using the oxygen method with other estimates to help us refine our technique.
Xin Xi, Jun Wang, Zhendong Lu, Andrew M. Sayer, Jaehwa Lee, Robert C. Levy, Yujie Wang, Alexei Lyapustin, Hongqing Liu, Istvan Laszlo, Changwoo Ahn, Omar Torres, Sabur Abdullaev, James Limbacher, and Ralph A. Kahn
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 7403–7429, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7403-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7403-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Aralkum Desert is challenging for aerosol retrieval due to its bright, heterogeneous, and dynamic surfaces and the lack of in situ constraints on aerosol properties. The performance and consistency of satellite algorithms in observing Aralkum-generated saline dust remain unknown. This study compares multisensor UVAI (ultraviolet aerosol index), AOD (aerosol optical depth), and ALH (aerosol layer height) products and reveals inconsistencies and potential biases over the Aral Sea basin.
Meng Gao, Bryan A. Franz, Peng-Wang Zhai, Kirk Knobelspiesse, Andrew M. Sayer, Xiaoguang Xu, J. Vanderlei Martins, Brian Cairns, Patricia Castellanos, Guangliang Fu, Neranga Hannadige, Otto Hasekamp, Yongxiang Hu, Amir Ibrahim, Frederick Patt, Anin Puthukkudy, and P. Jeremy Werdell
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 5863–5881, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5863-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5863-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated the retrievability and uncertainty of aerosol and ocean properties from PACE's HARP2 instrument using enhanced neural network models with the FastMAPOL algorithm. A cascading retrieval method is developed to improve retrieval performance. A global set of simulated HARP2 data is generated and used for uncertainty evaluations. The performance assessment demonstrates that the FastMAPOL algorithm is a viable approach for operational application to HARP2 data after PACE launch.
Neranga K. Hannadige, Peng-Wang Zhai, Meng Gao, Yongxiang Hu, P. Jeremy Werdell, Kirk Knobelspiesse, and Brian Cairns
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 5749–5770, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5749-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5749-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated the impact of three ocean optical models with different numbers of free parameters on the performance of an aerosol and ocean color remote sensing algorithm using the multi-angle polarimeter (MAP) measurements. It was demonstrated that the three- and seven-parameter bio-optical models can be used to accurately represent both open and coastal waters, whereas the one-parameter model has smaller retrieval uncertainty over open water.
Meng Gao, Kirk Knobelspiesse, Bryan A. Franz, Peng-Wang Zhai, Brian Cairns, Xiaoguang Xu, and J. Vanderlei Martins
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2067–2087, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2067-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2067-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Multi-angle polarimetric measurements have been shown to greatly improve the remote sensing capability of aerosols and help atmospheric correction for ocean color retrievals. However, the uncertainty correlations among different measurement angles have not been well characterized. In this work, we provided a practical framework to evaluate the impact of the angular uncertainty correlation in retrieval results and a method to directly estimate correlation strength from retrieval residuals.
Edward Gryspeerdt, Adam C. Povey, Roy G. Grainger, Otto Hasekamp, N. Christina Hsu, Jane P. Mulcahy, Andrew M. Sayer, and Armin Sorooshian
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 4115–4122, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4115-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-4115-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of aerosols on clouds is one of the largest uncertainties in the human forcing of the climate. Aerosol can increase the concentrations of droplets in clouds, but observational and model studies produce widely varying estimates of this effect. We show that these estimates can be reconciled if only polluted clouds are studied, but this is insufficient to constrain the climate impact of aerosol. The uncertainty in aerosol impact on clouds is currently driven by cases with little aerosol.
Andrew M. Sayer, Luca Lelli, Brian Cairns, Bastiaan van Diedenhoven, Amir Ibrahim, Kirk D. Knobelspiesse, Sergey Korkin, and P. Jeremy Werdell
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 969–996, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-969-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-969-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a method to estimate the height of the top of clouds above Earth's surface using satellite measurements. It is based on light absorption by oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, which darkens the signal that a satellite will see at certain wavelengths of light. Clouds "shield" the satellite from some of this darkening, dependent on cloud height (and other factors), because clouds scatter light at these wavelengths. The method will be applied to the future NASA PACE mission.
Santiago Gassó and Kirk D. Knobelspiesse
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13581–13605, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13581-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13581-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric particles interact with light resulting in observable optical polarization. Thus, we can learn about their composition from space. New satellite sensor technology measures full polarization of reflected sunlight. This paper considers circular polarization, an overlooked category of polarization with distinctive features that could bring new insights. We review existing literature and make novel computations to consider this previously underappreciated category of polarization.
Meng Gao, Kirk Knobelspiesse, Bryan A. Franz, Peng-Wang Zhai, Andrew M. Sayer, Amir Ibrahim, Brian Cairns, Otto Hasekamp, Yongxiang Hu, Vanderlei Martins, P. Jeremy Werdell, and Xiaoguang Xu
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4859–4879, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4859-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4859-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we assessed the pixel-wise retrieval uncertainties on aerosol and ocean color derived from multi-angle polarimetric measurements. Standard error propagation methods are used to compute the uncertainties. A flexible framework is proposed to evaluate how representative these uncertainties are compared with real retrieval errors. Meanwhile, to assist operational data processing, we optimized the computational speed to evaluate the retrieval uncertainties based on neural networks.
Cited articles
Ackerman, S., Frey, R., Kathleen Strabala, K., Liu, Y., Gumley, L., Baum, B., and Menzel, P.: MODIS Atmosphere L2 Cloud Mask Product, NASA MODIS Adaptive Processing System, Goddard Space Flight Center [data set], USA, https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD35_L2.006, 2015. a
Ardila, D., Kiraly, A. P., Bharadwaj, S., Choi, B., Reicher, J. J., Peng, L., Tse, D., Etemadi, M., Ye, W., Corrado, G., Naidich, D. P., and Shetty, S.: End-to-end lung cancer screening with three-dimensional deep learning on low-dose chest computed tomography, Nat. Med., 25, 954–961, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0447-x, 2019. a
Barker, H. W., Jerg, M. P., Wehr, T., Kato, S., Donovan, D. P., and Hogan, R. J.: A 3D cloud-construction algorithm for the EarthCARE satellite mission, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 1042–1058, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.824, 2011. a
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, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0203.1, 2012. a
Bentley, J. L.: Multidimensional Binary Search Trees Used for Associative Searching, Commun. ACM, 18, 509–517, https://doi.org/10.1145/361002.361007, 1975. a
Bolelli, F., Allegretti, S., Baraldi, L., and Grana, C.: Spaghetti Labeling: Directed Acyclic Graphs for Block-Based Connected Components Labeling, IEEE T. Image Process., 29, 1999–2012, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2019.2946979, 2020. a
Bony, S., Stevens, B., Frierson, D. M. W., Jakob, C., Kageyama, M., Pincus, R., Shepherd, T. G., Sherwood, S. C., Siebesma, A. P., Sobel, A. H., Watanabe, M., and Webb, M. J.: Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity, Nat. Geosci., 8, 261–268, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2398, 2015. a
Brüning, S., Niebler, S., and Tost, H.: Artificial intelligence (AI)-derived 3D cloud tomography from geostationary 2D satellite data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 961–978, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-961-2024, 2024. a
Buriez, J. C., Vanbauce, C., Parol, F., Goloub, P., Herman, M., Bonnel, B., Fouquart, Y., Couvert, P., and Seze, G.: Cloud Detection and Derivation of Cloud Properties from POLDER, Int. J. Remote Sens., 18, 2785–2813, https://doi.org/10.1080/014311697217332, 1997. a, b, c, d
Castro, E., Ishida, T., Takahashi, Y., Kubota, H., Perez, G., and Marciano, J.: Determination of Cloud-top Height through Three-dimensional Cloud Reconstruction using DIWATA-1 Data, Sci. Rep.-UK, 10, 7570, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64274-z, 2020. a
Ceppi, P., Brient, F., Zelinka, M. D., and Hartmann, D. L.: Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models, WIREs Clim. Change, 8, e465, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.465, 2017. a
Chan, M. A. and Comiso, J. C.: Cloud features detected by MODIS but not by CloudSat and CALIOP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L24813, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050063, 2011. a
Chen, C., Dubovik, O., Henze, D. K., Chin, M., Lapyonok, T., Schuster, G. L., Ducos, F., Fuertes, D., Litvinov, P., Li, L., Lopatin, A., Hu, Q., and Torres, B.: Constraining global aerosol emissions using POLDER/PARASOL satellite remote sensing observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14585–14606, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14585-2019, 2019. a
Christensen, M. W., Stephens, G. L., and Lebsock, M. D.: Exposing biases in retrieved low cloud properties from CloudSat: A guide for evaluating observations and climate data, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 12120–12131, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020224, 2013. a
Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S. S., Brox, T., and Ronneberger, O.: 3D U-Net: Learning Dense Volumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_49, 2016. a
Deschamps, P.-Y., Breon, F.-M., Leroy, M., Podaire, A., Bricaud, A., Buriez, J.-C., and Seze, G.: The POLDER mission: instrument characteristics and scientific objectives, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 32, 598–615, https://doi.org/10.1109/36.297978, 1994. a
Desmons, M., Ferlay, N., Parol, F., Riédi, J., and Thieuleux, F.: A Global Multilayer Cloud Identification with POLDER/PARASOL, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 56, 1121–1139, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0159.1, 2017. a, b
Dice, L. R.: Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between Species, Ecology, 26, 297–302, https://doi.org/10.2307/1932409, 1945. a
Diner, D., Beckert, J., Reilly, T., Bruegge, C., Conel, J., Kahn, R., Martonchik, J., Ackerman, T., Davies, R., Gerstl, S., Gordon, H., Muller, J.-P., Myneni, R., Sellers, P., Pinty, B., and Verstraete, M.: Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument description and experiment overview, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 36, 1072–1087, https://doi.org/10.1109/36.700992, 1998. a
Dubuisson, P., Dessailly, D., Vesperini, M., and Frouin, R.: Water vapor retrieval over ocean using near-infrared radiometry, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, D19106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004516, 2004. a
Eelbode, T., Bertels, J., Berman, M., Vandermeulen, D., Maes, F., Bisschops, R., and Blaschko, M. B.: Optimization for Medical Image Segmentation: Theory and Practice When Evaluating With Dice Score or Jaccard Index, IEEE T. Med. Imaging, 39, 3679–3690, https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2020.3002417, 2020. a, b
Ferlay, N., Thieuleux, F., Cornet, C., Davis, A. B., Dubuisson, P., Ducos, F., Parol, F., Riédi, J., and Vanbauce, C.: Toward New Inferences about Cloud Structures from Multidirectional Measurements in the Oxygen A Band: Middle-of-Cloud Pressure and Cloud Geometrical Thickness from POLDER-3/PARASOL, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 49, 2492–2507, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAMC2550.1, 2010. a
Foley S.: A-Train Cloud Segmentation (ATCS) Dataset, SeaBASS [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/SeaBASS/ATCS/DATA001, 2023. a
Gao, M., Franz, B. A., Zhai, P.-W., Knobelspiesse, K., Sayer, A. M., Xu, X., Martins, J. V., Cairns, B., Castellanos, P., Fu, G., Hannadige, N., Hasekamp, O., Hu, Y., Ibrahim, A., Patt, F., Puthukkudy, A., and Werdell, P. J.: Simultaneous retrieval of aerosol and ocean properties from PACE HARP2 with uncertainty assessment using cascading neural network radiative transfer models, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 5863–5881, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5863-2023, 2023. a
Gettelman, A. and Sherwood, S. C.: Processes responsible for cloud feedback, Current Climate Change Reports, 2, 179–189, 2016. a
Gupta, R. and Hartley, R.: Linear pushbroom cameras, IEEE T. Pattern Anal., 19, 963–975, https://doi.org/10.1109/34.615446, 1997. a
Hagolle, O., Guerry, A., Cunin, L., Millet, B., Perbos, J., Laherrere, J.-M., Bret-Dibat, T., and Poutier, L.: POLDER level-1 processing algorithms, Proc. SPIE, 2758, 308–319, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.243226, 1996. a, b
Haynes, J. M., L'Ecuyer, T. S., Stephens, G. L., Miller, S. D., Mitrescu, C., Wood, N. B., and Tanelli, S.: Rainfall retrieval over the ocean with spaceborne W-band radar, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D00A22, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009973, 2009. a
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., 113, D00A19, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009837, 2008. a
Hunter, J. D.: Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55, 2007. a
Im, E., Wu, C., and Durden, S.: Cloud profiling radar for the CloudSat mission, in: IEEE International Radar Conference, Arlington, VA, USA, 9–12 May 2005, IEEE, 483–486, https://doi.org/10.1109/RADAR.2005.1435874, 2005. a
Jnawali, K., Arbabshirani, M. R., Rao, N., and M. D., A. A. P.: Deep 3D convolution neural network for CT brain hemorrhage classification, in: Medical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, vol. 10575, edited by Petrick, N. and Mori, K., International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2293725, p. 105751C, 2018. a
Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J.: Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980, 30 January 2017. a
Leinonen, J., Guillaume, A., and Yuan, T.: Reconstruction of Cloud Vertical Structure With a Generative Adversarial Network, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 7035–7044, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082532, 2019. a
Liu, G.: Deriving snow cloud characteristics from CloudSat observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D00A09, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009766, 2008. a
Luo, W., Li, Y., Urtasun, R., and Zemel, R. S.: Understanding the Effective Receptive Field in Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, CoRR, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.04128, 25 January 2017. a
L'Ecuyer, T. S., Beaudoing, H. K., Rodell, M., Olson, W., Lin, B., Kato, S., Clayson, C. A., Wood, E., Sheffield, J., Adler, R., Huffman, G., Bosilovich, M., Gu, G., Robertson, F., Houser, P. R., Chambers, D., Famiglietti, J. S., Fetzer, E., Liu, W. T., Gao, X., Schlosser, C. A., Clark, E., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Hilburn, K.: The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early Twenty-First Century, J. Climate, 28, 8319–8346, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00556.1, 2015. a
Mace, G. G. and Zhang, Q.: The CloudSat radar-lidar geometrical profile product (RL-GeoProf): Updates, improvements, and selected results, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 9441–9462, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021374, 2014. a
Marchand, R., Ackerman, T., Smyth, M., and Rossow, W. B.: A review of cloud top height and optical depth histograms from MISR, ISCCP, and MODIS, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D16206, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013422, 2010. a
Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Eyring, V., Flato, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Stouffer, R. J., Taylor, K. E., and Schlund, M.: Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models, Science Advances, 6, eaba1981, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981, 2020. a
Mitra, A., Di Girolamo, L., Hong, Y., Zhan, Y., and Mueller, K. J.: Assessment and Error Analysis of Terra-MODIS and MISR Cloud-Top Heights Through Comparison With ISS-CATS Lidar, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD034281, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034281, 2021. a
Mitra, A., Loveridge, J. R., and Di Girolamo, L.: Fusion of MISR Stereo Cloud Heights and Terra-MODIS Thermal Infrared Radiances to Estimate Two-Layered Cloud Properties, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 128, e2022JD038135, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD038135, 2023. a
Mohajerani, S. and Saeedi, P.: Cloud and Cloud Shadow Segmentation for Remote Sensing Imagery Via Filtered Jaccard Loss Function and Parametric Augmentation, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl, 14, 4254–4266, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3070786, 2021. a
Mousavian, A., Anguelov, D., Flynn, J., and Kosecka, J.: 3D Bounding Box Estimation Using Deep Learning and Geometry, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1612.00496, 10 April 2017. a
Muller, J., Denis, M., Dundas, R. D., Mitchell, K. L., Naud, C., and Mannstein, H.: Stereo cloud-top heights and cloud fraction retrieval from ATSR-2, Int. J. Remote Sens., 28, 1921–1938, https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160601030975, 2007. a, b
Nelson, D., Garay, M., Diner, D., and Kahn, R.: The MISR Wildfire Smoke Plume Height Project, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, San Francisco, CA, 13–17 December 2010. a
Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., Desmaison, A., Köpf, A., Yang, E. Z., DeVito, Z., Raison, M., Tejani, A., Chilamkurthy, S., Steiner, B., Fang, L., Bai, J., and Chintala, S.: PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library, arXiv [preprint] [code], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.01703, 3 December 2019. a
Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegrıa, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A., and Rama, B.: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844, 2022. a
Ronen, R., Holodovsky, V., and Schechner, Y. Y.: Variable Imaging Projection Cloud Scattering Tomography, IEEE T. Pattern Anal., 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3195920, 2022. a
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., and Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1505.04597, 18 May 2015. a
Rossow, W. B., Knapp, K. R., and Young, A. H.: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project: Extending the Record, J. Climate, 35, 141–158, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0157.1, 2022. a
Sassen, K. and Wang, Z.: Classifying Clouds around the Globe with the CloudSat Radar: 1-Year of Results, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032591, 2008. a, b
Schönberger, J. L. and Frahm, J.-M.: Structure-From-Motion Revisited, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.445, 2016. a, b
Schönberger, J. L., Zheng, E., Pollefeys, M., and Frahm, J.-M.: Pixelwise View Selection for Unstructured Multi-View Stereo, in: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46487-9_31, 2016. a
Sde-Chen, Y., Schechner, Y. Y., Holodovsky, V., and Eytan, E.: 3DeepCT: Learning Volumetric Scattering Tomography of Clouds, in: 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Montreal, QC, Canada, 10–17 October 2021, IEEE, 5651–5662, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00562, 2021. a
Sinclair, K., van Diedenhoven, B., Cairns, B., Yorks, J., Wasilewski, A., and McGill, M.: Remote sensing of multiple cloud layer heights using multi-angular measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 2361–2375, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2361-2017, 2017. a
Smalley, M., L'Ecuyer, T., Lebsock, M., and Haynes, J.: A Comparison of Precipitation Occurrence from the NCEP Stage IV QPE Product and the CloudSat Cloud Profiling Radar, J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 444–458, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-048.1, 2014. a
Soffer, S., Klang, E., Shimon, O., Barash, Y., Cahan, N., Greenspana, H., and Konen, E.: Deep learning for pulmonary embolism detection on computed tomography pulmonary angiogram: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Sci. Rep.-UK, 11, 15814, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95249-3, 2021. a
Stephens, G., Winker, D., Pelon, J., Trepte, C., Vane, D., Yuhas, C., L'Ecuyer, T., and Lebsock, M.: CloudSat and CALIPSO within the A-Train: Ten Years of Actively Observing the Earth System, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 569–581, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0324.1, 2018. a, b
Stephens, G. L. and Webster, P. J.: Clouds and Climate: Sensitivity of Simple Systems, J. Atmos. Sci., 38, 235–247, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1981)038<0235:CACSOS>2.0.CO;2, 1981. a
Stephens, G. L., Vane, D. G., Boain, R. J., Mace, G. G., Sassen, K., Wang, Z., Illingworth, A. J., O'connor, E. J., Rossow, W. B., Durden, S. L., Miller, S. D., Austin, R. T., Benedetti, A., and Mitrescu, C.: THE CLOUDSAT MISSION AND THE A-TRAIN: A New Dimension of Space-Based Observations of Clouds and Precipitation, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 83, 1771–1790, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-83-12-1771, 2002. a, b
Stillinger, T., Roberts, D. A., Collar, N. M., and Dozier, J.: Cloud Masking for Landsat 8 and MODIS Terra Over Snow-Covered Terrain: Error Analysis and Spectral Similarity Between Snow and Cloud, Water Resour. Res., 55, 6169–6184, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024932, 2019. a
Wang, Z., Ning, X., and Blaschko, M. B.: Jaccard Metric Losses: Optimizing the Jaccard Index with Soft Labels, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.05666, 20 March 2024, 2019. a
Waskom, M. L.: seaborn: statistical data visualization, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021, 2021. a
Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Deuzé, J.-L., Dubovik, O., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Herman, M., Lapyonok, T., Labonnote, L. C., Riedi, J., Tanré, D., Thieuleux, F., and Vanbauce, C.: Retrieval of aerosol microphysical and optical properties above liquid clouds from POLDER/PARASOL polarization measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 991–1016, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-991-2013, 2013. a
Wehr, T., Kubota, T., Tzeremes, G., Wallace, K., Nakatsuka, H., Ohno, Y., Koopman, R., Rusli, S., Kikuchi, M., Eisinger, M., Tanaka, T., Taga, M., Deghaye, P., Tomita, E., and Bernaerts, D.: The EarthCARE mission – science and system overview, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 3581–3608, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-3581-2023, 2023. a
Werdell, P. J., Behrenfeld, M. J., Bontempi, P. S., Boss, E., Cairns, B., Davis, G. T., Franz, B. A., Gliese, U. B., Gorman, E. T., Hasekamp, O., Knobelspiesse, K. D., Mannino, A., Martins, J. V., McClain, C. R., Meister, G., and Remer, L. A.: The Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, Ocean Ecosystem Mission: Status, Science, Advances, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 1775–1794, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0056.1, 2019. a, b
Winker, D. M., Vaughan, M. A., Omar, A., Hu, Y., Powell, K. A., Liu, Z., Hunt, W. H., and Young, S. A.: Overview of the CALIPSO Mission and CALIOP Data Processing Algorithms, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 26, 2310–2323, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1281.1, 2009. a
Wood, R. and Field, P. R.: The Distribution of Cloud Horizontal Sizes, J. Climate, 24, 4800–4816, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4056.1, 2011. a
Wu, L., Hasekamp, O., van Diedenhoven, B., Cairns, B., Yorks, J. E., and Chowdhary, J.: Passive remote sensing of aerosol layer height using near-UV multiangle polarization measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8783–8790, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069848, 2016. a
Zhang, K., Sun, J., and Snavely, N.: Leveraging Vision Reconstruction Pipelines for Satellite Imagery, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.02989, 16 October 2019. a, b
Zijdenbos, A., Dawant, B., Margolin, R., and Palmer, A.: Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation, IEEE T. Med. Imaging, 13, 716–724, https://doi.org/10.1109/42.363096, 1994. a
Short summary
Measuring the shape of clouds helps scientists understand how the Earth will continue to respond to climate change. Satellites measure clouds in different ways. One way is to take pictures of clouds from multiple angles and to use the differences between the pictures to measure cloud structure. However, doing this accurately can be challenging. We propose a way to use machine learning to recover the shape of clouds from multi-angle satellite data.
Measuring the shape of clouds helps scientists understand how the Earth will continue to respond...
