Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Chiu, J. Christine; Marshak, A.; Knyazikhin, Y.; Wiscombe, W.J.; Barker, H.W.; Barnard, J.C.; Luo, Y. (2006)
Publisher: American Geophysical Union
Languages: English
Types: Article
We have conducted the first extensive field test of two new methods to retrieve optical properties for overhead clouds that range from patchy to overcast. The methods use measurements of zenith radiance at 673 and 870 nm wavelengths and require the presence of green vegetation in the surrounding area. The test was conducted at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Oklahoma site during September–November 2004. These methods work because at 673 nm (red) and 870 nm (near infrared (NIR)), clouds have nearly identical optical properties, while vegetated surfaces reflect quite differently. The first method, dubbed REDvsNIR, retrieves not only cloud optical depth τ but also radiative cloud fraction. Because of the 1-s time resolution of our radiance measurements, we are able for the first time to capture changes in cloud optical properties at the natural timescale of cloud evolution. We compared values of τ retrieved by REDvsNIR to those retrieved from downward shortwave fluxes and from microwave brightness temperatures. The flux method generally underestimates τ relative to the REDvsNIR method. Even for overcast but inhomogeneous clouds, differences between REDvsNIR and the flux method can be as large as 50%. In addition, REDvsNIR agreed to better than 15% with the microwave method for both overcast and broken clouds. The second method, dubbed COUPLED, retrieves τ by combining zenith radiances with fluxes. While extra information from fluxes was expected to improve retrievals, this is not always the case. In general, however, the COUPLED and REDvsNIR methods retrieve τ to within 15% of each other.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Barker, H. W., and A. Marshak (2001), Inferring optical depth of broken clouds above green vegetation using surface solar radiometric measurements, J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 2989 - 3006.
    • Barker, H. W., T. J. Curtis, E. Leontieva, and K. Stamnes (1998), Optical depth of overcast cloud across Canada: Estimates based on surface pyranometer and satellite measurements, J. Clim., 11, 2980 - 2994.
    • Barker, H. W., C. F. Pavloski, M. Ovtchinnikov, and E. E. Clothiaux (2004), Assessing a cloud optical depth retrieval algorithm with modelgenerated data and the frozen turbulence assumption, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 2951 - 2956.
    • Beaulne, A., H. W. Barker, and J.-P. Blanchet (2005), Estimating cloud optical depth from surface radiometric observations: Sensitivity to instrument noise and aerosol contamination, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 4095 - 4104.
    • Boers, R. (1997), Simultaneous retrievals of cloud optical depth and droplet concentration from solar irradiance and microwave liquid, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 2981 - 2989.
    • Box, M. A., S. A. W. Gerstl, and C. Simmer (1988), Application of the adjoint formulation to the calculation of atmospheric radiative effects, Contrib. Atmos. Phys., 61, 303 - 311.
    • Dong, X., T. P. Ackerman, E. E. Clothiaux, P. Pilewskie, and Y. Han (1997), Microphysical and radiative properties of boundary layer stratiform clouds deduced from ground-based measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 23,829 - 23,843.
    • Holben, B. N., et al. (1998), AERONET-A federated instrument network and data archive for aerosol characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66, 1 - 16.
    • Knyazikhin, Y., A. Marshak, and R. B. Myneni (2005), 3D radiative transfer in vegetation canopies and cloud-vegetation interaction, in Three-Dimensional Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres, edited by A. Marshak and A. B. Davis, pp. 623 - 658, Springer, New York.
    • Leontieva, E., and K. Stamnes (1994), Estimations of cloud optical thickness from ground-based measurements of incoming solar radiation in the Arctic, J. Clim., 7, 566 - 578.
    • Leontieva, E., and K. Stamnes (1996), Remote sensing of cloud optical properties from ground-based measurements of transmittance: A feasibility case, J. Appl. Meteorol., 35, 2012 - 2022.
    • Liljegren, J. C., and B. M. Lesht (1996), Measurements of integrated water vapor and cloud liquid water from microwave radiometers at the DOE ARM Cloud and Radiation Testbed in the Southern Great Plains, paper presented at International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Inst. of Electr. and Electron. Eng., Lincoln, Nebr., 21 - 26 May.
    • Liljegren, J. C., E. E. Clothiaux, G. G. Mace, S. Kato, and X. Dong (2001), A new retrieval for cloud liquid water path using a ground-based microwave radiometer and measurements of cloud temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 14,485 - 14,500.
    • Luo, Y., A. P. Trishchenko, R. Latifovic, and Z. Li (2005), Surface bidirectional reflectance and albedo properties derived using a land cover - based approach with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer observations, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D01106, doi:10.1029/2004JD004741.
    • Marshak, A., Y. Knyazikhin, A. B. Davis, W. J. Wiscombe, and P. Pilewskie (2000), Cloud-vegetation interaction: Use of normalized difference cloud index for estimation of cloud optical thickness, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 1695 - 1698.
    • Marshak, A., Y. Knyazikhin, K. D. Evans, and W. J. Wiscombe (2004), The ''RED versus NIR'' plane to retrieve broken-cloud optical depth from ground-based measurements, cloud-vegetation interaction: Use of normalized difference cloud index for estimation of cloud optical thickness, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1911 - 1925.
    • Min, Q. L., and L. C. Harrison (1996), Cloud properties derived from surface MFRSR measurements and comparison with GOES results at the ARM SGP site, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 1641 - 1644.
    • Min, Q., E. Joseph, and M. Duan (2004), Retrievals of thin cloud optical depth from a multifilter rotating shadowband radiometer, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D02201, doi:10.1029/2003JD003964.
    • Petty, G. W. (Ed.) (2004), A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, 444 pp., Sundog, Madison, Wis.
    • Ricchiazzi, P., C. Gautier, and D. Lubin (1995), Cloud scattering optical depth and local surface albedo in the Antarctic: Simultaneous retrieval using ground-based radiometry, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 21,091 - 21,104.
    • Schaaf, C. B., et al. (2002), First operational BRDF, albedo nadir reflectance products from MODIS, Remote Sens. Environ., 83, 135 - 148.
    • Stamnes, K., S.-C. Tsay, W. J. Wiscombe, and K. Jayaweera (1988), Numerically stable algorithm for discrete-ordinate-method radiative transfer in multiple scattering and emitting layered media, Appl. Opt., 27, 2502 - 2512.
    • Tucker, C. J. (1979), Red and photographic infrared linear combination for monitoring vegetation, Remote Sens. Environ., 8, 127 - 150. H. W. Barker, Cloud Physics Research Division, Meteorological Service of Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Downsview, ON, Canada M3H 5T4. J. C. Barnard, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PO Box 999, K9-30, Richland, WA 99352, USA. J. C. Chiu, Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA. () Y. Knyazikhin, Department of Geography, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA. Y. Luo, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Natural Resources Canada, 588 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON Canada K1A 0Y7. A. Marshak and W. J. Wiscombe, Climate and Radiation Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 613.2, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article