18/04/23 1
Validating the AVHRR Cloud Top Temperature and Height product
using weather radar data
COST 722 Expert Meeting 9.-11. 6. 2004
Sauli Joro
18/04/23 2
•Introduction
•Weather radar & TOPS product
•Cloud Top Temperature and Height product
•Data
•Product comparison
•Results
•Summary
Outline
18/04/23 3
•Visiting Scientist Activity within EUMETSAT SAFNWC framework
•EUMETSAT Satellite Application Facilities (SAFs) are programs specialized in developing and processing satellite data
•SAFNWC is consentrated on nowcasting and very short range forecasting
Introduction
18/04/23 4
•The Cloud Top Temperature and Height (CTTH) product is developed within the SAFNWC framework
•Objective is to validate CTTH product with weather radar data – known to be very ambitious
•Study mainly concentrated on opaque and semi-transparent high clouds (clouds containing ice)
18/04/23 5
Weather radar & TOPS product
•”Direct” cloud measurement with good temporal and spatial resolution
18/04/23 6
Experimental ice particle distributions in different
cirrus clouds (Liou, 1992).
water: 0.93 ice: 0.176
18/04/23 7
•”What is the threshold value for an echo in dBZ to be considered as the cloud top?”
•FMI & Finnish Air Force: ”in case of ’raining cloud’ treshold value of –10 dBZ should give reliable cloud top heights”
•Poutiainen (1999): ”Various cirrus types can create Z values between –15 - +5 dBZ
•-5 dBZ and -10 dBZ selected to represent the true tops of ice clouds
18/04/23 8
Thick cirrus on RHI screen taken from Radar Vantaa on 25 June 1998 at 10:59 UTC (Poutiainen,
1999)
18/04/23 9
Thin cirrus on RHI screen taken from Radar Vantaa on 22 July 1998 at 07:29 UTC (Poutiainen, 1999)
18/04/23 10
•Uses 3-D weather radar data
•Vertical resolution 100 m
TOPS product
•For each pixel downward search in cylindrical coordinates at constant range for the chosen dBZ treshold value and determines if it is crossed -> interpolation
18/04/23 11
TOPS underestimation
18/04/23 12
CTTH product•Aims providing reliable estimates of the cloud top temperature and height for all the cloudy pixels within an AVHRR scene
•Vertical resolution 200 m
•Consists of two algorithms: one for opaque and one for semi-transparent cloudiness
•Results of Cloud Mask and Cloud Type products used as input data
18/04/23 13
CTTH opaque retrieval
•Applied to all pixels classified as ’opaque’ by the Cloud Type product
•Based on Radiative Transfer Model simulations and results of NWP model
•For each pressure level the RTM simulates the AVHRR channel 4 cloudy brightness temperature -> the best fit to the measurement is selected -> CTH from NWP
18/04/23 14
CTTH semi-transparent retrieval•Measurement itself is
”contaminated” as the radiation from the surface is partly passed through the cloud -> brightness temperatures too warm
•Method uses AVHRR channels 4 and 5 brightness temperatures
•Result is applied to all pixels within an image segment classified as semi-transparent
18/04/23 15
Example distribution of 32x32 pixel size image
segment.
semi-transparent
opaque
clear
•Single cloud layer
•Constant absorption
coefficient throughout the
cloud layer
•Brightness temperature
depends linearly on radiance
•No atmospheric absorption
•Local thermodynamic
equilibriumthermodynamic cloud top temperature
18/04/23 16
Data
•Selected time period April and May 2003
•301 satellite overpasses
•FMI radar data, 15min temporal resolution
•NWP used: HIRLAM
•RTM used: RTTOV
18/04/23 17
•Maximum elevation angle sets a certain minimum distance for cloud top height detection
•Radar sensitivity sets a maximum distance for each dBZ value
”Donuts” around radar sites
•Proper –10 dBZ cases only from Radar Utajärvi
•Cases divided into two sub-categories -5 dBZ and -10 dBZ
Radar data features
18/04/23 18
Product comparison
•Cases selected subjectively from AVHRR imagery together with Cloud Type and CTTH product outputs
18/04/23 19
•Simple comparison method used – data may not be normally distributed
•Pixel-by-pixel comparison not reasonable -> data needs to be averaged
•Data is classified to histogram with 200 m class intervals -> resolution difference vanishes
•Modes are taken as the results of the products
•Mode difference = TOPS – CTTH
•Comparison is considered to be successful if the absolute value of mode difference is less than 500 m
18/04/23 20
Results
TOPS-CTTH
both -5 dBZ and -10 dBZ cases
41% success
18/04/23 21
TOPS-CTTH
radar echoes below 2000m discarded-10 dBZ applied to all cases
57% success
18/04/23 22
TOPS-CTTH
no discarded echoes
cases within r-10 coverage area
75% success
18/04/23 23
Case A: Opaque high cloud from Radar Ikaalinen -5 dBZ coverage. Satellite over pass is received on 1
May 2003 at 10:43 UTC.
timing -2 minutes
18/04/23 24
Case A frequency distributions and HP’s.
18/04/23 25
Case B: Opaque high cloud from Radar Anjalankoski -5 dBZ coverage. Satellite over pass is received on 29
April 2003 at 19:15 UTC.
timing -3 minutes
18/04/23 26
Case B frequency distributions and HP’s.
18/04/23 27
TOPS-CTTH
18/04/23 28
Case C: Semi-transparent high cloud from Radar Utajärvi -10 dBZ coverage. Satellite over pass is
received on 13 May 2003 at 10:47 UTC.
timing -6 minutes
18/04/23 29
Case C frequency distributions and HP’s.
18/04/23 30
Summary
•A new approach for the CTTH product validation presented
•The approach presented here uses 3D radar data
•Result interpretation very challenging as both methods are based on numerous assumptions – lots of different error sources
18/04/23 31
•Results on the opaque high cloud categoty promising – more than 55% of the comparisons successful
• Still lots of unsuccessful comparisons with no explicit explanation, also Cloud Type misclassifications occurred
•-10 dBZ proved to be a good first guess for the top heights of thick ice clouds
18/04/23 32
•Results on semi-transparent high cloud category disappointing with only three successfull comparisons
•-10 dBZ threshold turned out to be too high for the semi-transparent high clouds and more sensitive values should be applied in the future
18/04/23 33
A weather radar is not the best possible tool for the CTH validation, however, it can offer valuable information about the cloud tops in various situations being at its best when the cloud consists lots of ice particles.
The lack of 45-degree elevation angles limited proper -10 dBZ cases to Radar Utajärvi
Conclusion
18/04/23 34
Report available at
http://www.smhi.se/saf