Solar zenith and viewing geometry‐dependent errors in satellite retrieved cloud optical thickness: Marine stratocumulus case

[1] The error in the domain-averaged cloud optical thickness retrieved from satellite-based imagers is investigated using a cloud field generated by a cloud model and a 3D radiative transfer model. The objective of this study is to identify the optimal geometry for the optical thickness retrieval and quantify the error. The cloud field used in the simulation is a relatively uniform (retrieved shape parameter of a gamma distribution averaged over all simulated viewing and solar zenith angles is 18) and nearly isotropic stratocumulus field. The retrieved cloud cover with a 1-km pixel resolution is 100%. The domain-averaged optical thickness error is separated into two terms, the error caused by an assumption of a horizontally uniform cloud over a 1-km pixel (internal variability) and error caused by neglecting the horizontal flux through the boundary of subpixels (external variability). For the cloud field used in this study, the external variability term increases with solar zenith angle and the sign changes from negative to positive while the internal variability term is generally negative and becomes more negative as the solar zenith angle increases. At a small solar zenith angle, therefore, both terms are negative, but the error partially cancels at a large solar zenith angle. When the solar zenith angle is less than 30°, both terms are small; the error in the viewing zenith angle and domain-averaged cloud optical thickness derived from the relative azimuth angle smaller than 150 is less than 10%. However, if the optical thickness is derived from nadir view only for overhead sun, the domain-averaged optical thickness is underestimated by more than 10%. When the solar zenith angle increases to 60°, the internal variability term exceeds 10%, especially viewed from the forward direction, but the domain and viewing zenith angle averaged optical thickness error can be less than 10% in the backward direction. When the solar zenith angle is 70°, both terms are greater than 10%. The shape parameter of a gamma distribution derived from retrieved optical thicknesses increases with the viewing zenith angle but decreases with solar zenith angle. On the basis of this simulation and Terra Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) viewing geometry and solar zenith angle at the sampling time over the northeastern Pacific, the error in the domain-averaged retrieved optical thickness of uniform stratocumulus over northeastern Pacific is less than 10% in March and September.

[1]  K. Evans,et al.  Three-dimensional solar radiative transfer in small tropical cumulus fields derived from high-resolution imagery , 2001 .

[2]  Patrick Minnis,et al.  Parameterizations of reflectance and effective emittance for satellite remote sensing of cloud properties , 1998 .

[3]  K. Stamnes,et al.  Numerically stable algorithm for discrete-ordinate-method radiative transfer in multiple scattering and emitting layered media. , 1988, Applied optics.

[4]  M. A. Friedman,et al.  Retrieval of Cloud Properties for Partly Cloudy Imager Pixels , 2005 .

[5]  Tobias Zinner,et al.  Determination of three‐dimensional cloud structures from high‐resolution radiance data , 2006 .

[6]  R. Davies,et al.  Apparent breakdown of reciprocity in reflected solar radiances , 1998 .

[7]  Åke Björck,et al.  Numerical Methods , 1995, Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Control.

[8]  K. Evans The Spherical Harmonics Discrete Ordinate Method for Three-Dimensional Atmospheric Radiative Transfer , 1998 .

[9]  Steven Platnick,et al.  Evaluation of Cirrus Cloud Properties Derived from MODIS Data Using Cloud Properties Derived from Ground-Based Observations Collected at the ARM SGP Site , 2005 .

[10]  Seiji Kato,et al.  Estimate of satellite‐derived cloud optical thickness and effective radius errors and their effect on computed domain‐averaged irradiances , 2006 .

[11]  A. Marshak,et al.  A method for analyzing how various parts of clouds influence each other's brightness , 2003 .

[12]  Reciprocity principle for radiative transfer models that use periodic boundary conditions , 2002 .

[13]  Bjorn Stevens,et al.  A Large-Eddy Simulation Study of Anisotropy in Fair-Weather Cumulus Cloud Fields , 2005 .

[14]  Thomas P. Charlock,et al.  Computation of Domain-Averaged Irradiance Using Satellite-Derived Cloud Properties , 2005 .

[15]  Robert F. Cahalan,et al.  Independent Pixel and Monte Carlo Estimates of Stratocumulus Albedo , 1994 .

[16]  Michael D. King,et al.  A solar reflectance method for retrieving the optical thickness and droplet size of liquid water clouds over snow and ice surfaces , 2001 .

[17]  W. Paul Menzel,et al.  Remote sensing of cloud, aerosol, and water vapor properties from the moderate resolution imaging spectrometer (MODIS) , 1992, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[18]  Roger Davies,et al.  Effect of cloud inhomogeneities on the solar zenith angle dependence of nadir reflectance , 1997 .

[19]  Alexander Marshak,et al.  View angle dependence of cloud optical thicknesses retrieved by Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) , 2007 .

[20]  B. Mayer,et al.  Remote sensing of stratocumulus clouds: Uncertainties and biases due to inhomogeneity , 2006 .

[21]  Roger Davies,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation of radiation measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment: Scene inhomogeneity and reciprocity violation , 1994 .

[22]  Norman G. Loeb,et al.  Inference of Marine Stratus Cloud Optical Depths from Satellite Measurements: Does 1D Theory Apply? , 1998 .

[23]  A. Marshak,et al.  Multiple Scattering in Clouds: Insights from Three-Dimensional Diffusion/P1 Theory , 2001 .

[24]  Bruce A. Wielicki,et al.  Satellite Instrument Calibration for Measuring Global Climate Change: Report of a Workshop , 2004 .

[25]  Steven Platnick,et al.  Impact of three‐dimensional radiative effects on satellite retrievals of cloud droplet sizes , 2006 .

[26]  B. Wielicki,et al.  Independent Pixel and Two Dimensional Estimates of LANDSAT-Derived Cloud Field Albedo , 1997 .

[27]  Patrick Minnis,et al.  Comparison of CERES-MODIS stratus cloud properties with ground-based measurements at the DOE ARM Southern Great Plains site , 2008 .

[28]  Paquita Zuidema,et al.  On the validity of the independent pixel approximation for boundary layer clouds observed during ASTEX , 1998 .

[29]  B. Stevens,et al.  Large-Eddy Simulations of Radiatively Driven Convection: Sensitivities to the Representation of Small Scales , 1999 .

[30]  Anthony B. Davis,et al.  Radiative smoothing in fractal clouds , 1995 .

[31]  Y. Knyazikhin,et al.  A Primer in 3D Radiative Transfer , 2005 .

[32]  R. Aronson,et al.  Radiative transfer implies a modified reciprocity relation. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[33]  Bruce A. Wielicki,et al.  Satellite Instrument Calibration for Measuring Global Climate Change | NIST , 2004 .

[34]  B. Barkstrom,et al.  Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment , 1989, Science.

[35]  Sunny Sun-Mack,et al.  Cloud Detection in Nonpolar Regions for CERES Using TRMM VIRS and Terra and Aqua MODIS Data , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[36]  David M. Winker,et al.  Influence of Subpixel-Scale Cloud-Top Structure on Reflectances from Overcast Stratiform Cloud Layers , 1998 .

[37]  Bruce A. Wielicki,et al.  Multi-instrument comparison of top-of-atmosphere reflected solar radiation , 2007 .

[38]  Robert F. Cahalan,et al.  The Landsat Scale Break in Stratocumulus as a Three-Dimensional Radiative Transfer Effect: Implications for Cloud Remote Sensing , 1997 .