A Comparison of Cloud Layers from Ground and Satellite Active Remote Sensing at the Southern Great Plains ARM Site  

作　　者：Jinqiang ZHANG Xiang'ao XIA Hongbin CHEN 

机构地区：[1]Key Laboratory of Middle Atmosphere and Global Environment Observation,Institute of Atmospheric Physics,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100029,China [2]Center of Technical Support and Service,Institute of Atmospheric Physics,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100029,China [3]Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters,Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology,Nanjing 210044,China

出　　处：《Advances in Atmospheric Sciences》2017年第3期347-359,共13页大气科学进展（英文版）

基　　金：supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant Nos.61327810,41275039,41675033,and 91337214)

摘　　要：Using the data collected over the Southern Great Plains ARM site from 2006 to 2010, the surface Active Remote Sensing of Cloud （ARSCL） and CloudSat-CALIPSO satellite （CC） retrievals of total cloud and six specified cloud types [low, midlow （ML）, high-mid-low （HML）, mid, high-mid （HM） and high] were compared in terms of cloud fraction （CF）, cloud-base height （CBH）, cloud-top height （CTH） and cloud thickness （CT）, on different temporal scales, to identify their respective advantages and limitations. Good agreement between the two methods was exhibited in the total CF. However, large discrepancies were found between the cloud distributions of the two methods at a high （240-m） vertical grid spacing. Compared to the satellites, ARSCL retrievals detected more boundary layer clouds, while they underestimated high clouds. In terms of the six specific cloud types, more low- and mid-level clouds but less HML- and high-level clouds were detected by ARSCL than by CC. In contrast, the ARSCL retrievals of ML- and HM-level clouds agreed more closely with the estimations from the CC product. Lower CBHs tended to be reported by the surface data for low-, ML- and HML-level clouds; however, higher CTHs were often recorded by the satellite product for HML-, HM- and high-level clouds. The mean CTs for low- and ML-level cloud were similar between the two products; however, the mean CTs for HML-, mid-, HM- and high-level clouds from ARSCL were smaller than those from CC.Using the data collected over the Southern Great Plains ARM site from 2006 to 2010, the surface Active Remote Sensing of Cloud （ARSCL） and CloudSat-CALIPSO satellite （CC） retrievals of total cloud and six specified cloud types [low, midlow （ML）, high-mid-low （HML）, mid, high-mid （HM） and high] were compared in terms of cloud fraction （CF）, cloud-base height （CBH）, cloud-top height （CTH） and cloud thickness （CT）, on different temporal scales, to identify their respective advantages and limitations. Good agreement between the two methods was exhibited in the total CF. However, large discrepancies were found between the cloud distributions of the two methods at a high （240-m） vertical grid spacing. Compared to the satellites, ARSCL retrievals detected more boundary layer clouds, while they underestimated high clouds. In terms of the six specific cloud types, more low- and mid-level clouds but less HML- and high-level clouds were detected by ARSCL than by CC. In contrast, the ARSCL retrievals of ML- and HM-level clouds agreed more closely with the estimations from the CC product. Lower CBHs tended to be reported by the surface data for low-, ML- and HML-level clouds; however, higher CTHs were often recorded by the satellite product for HML-, HM- and high-level clouds. The mean CTs for low- and ML-level cloud were similar between the two products; however, the mean CTs for HML-, mid-, HM- and high-level clouds from ARSCL were smaller than those from CC.

关 键 词：surface SATELLITE active remote sensing CLOUD 

分 类 号：P407[天文地球—大气科学及气象学]