4.6 Article

From CloudSat-CALIPSO to EarthCare: Evolution of the DARDAR cloud classification and its comparison to airborne radar-lidar observations

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 118, 期 14, 页码 7962-7981

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50579

关键词

clouds; radar; lidar; classification; DARDAR

资金

  1. CNES
  2. ACRI-ST
  3. NERC [earth010002, NE/H003894/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [earth010002, NE/H003894/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the implementation of a new version of the DARDAR (radar lidar) classification derived from CloudSat and CALIPSO data. The resulting target classification called DARDAR v2 is compared to the first version called DARDAR v1. Overall DARDAR v1 reports more cloud or rain pixels than DARDAR v2. In the low troposphere this is because v1 detects too many liquid cloud pixels, and in the higher troposphere this is because v2 is more restrictive in lidar detection than v1. Nevertheless, the spatial distribution of different types of hydrometeors show similar patterns in both classifications. The French airborne Radar-Lidar (RALI) platform carries a CloudSat/CALIPSO instrument configuration (lidar at a wavelength of 532nm and a 95GHz cloud radar) as well as an EarthCare instrument configuration (high spectral resolution lidar at 355nm and a 95GHz Doppler cloud radar). It therefore represents an ideal go-between for A-Train and EarthCare. The DARDAR v2 classification algorithm is adapted to RALI data for A-Train overpasses during dedicated airborne field experiments using the lidar at 532nm and the radar Doppler measurements. The results from the RALI classification are compared with the DARDAR v2 classification to identify where the classification should still be interpreted with caution. Finally, the RALI classification algorithm with lidar at 532nm is adapted to RALI with high spectral resolution lidar data at 355nm in preparation for EarthCare.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据