Lidar observations of mixed-phase clouds Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth, Ewan OConnor & Mukunda Dev Behera University of Reading UK Overview Enhanced.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Vertical distribution of ash at source Time-height plots of mass concentration at Chilbolton. The height above the summit into which ash particles are.
Advertisements

Fast lidar & radar multiple-scattering models for cloud retrievals Robin Hogan (University of Reading) Alessandro Battaglia (University of Bonn) How can.
Robin Hogan, Julien Delanoe and Nicola Pounder University of Reading Towards unified retrievals of clouds, precipitation and aerosols.
Robin Hogan, Chris Westbrook University of Reading Lin Tian NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Phil Brown Met Office Why it is important that ice particles.
Ewan OConnor, Anthony Illingworth, Robin Hogan and the Cloudnet team Cloudnet.
Quantifying sub-grid cloud structure and representing it GCMs
The time-dependent two-stream method for lidar and radar multiple scattering Robin Hogan (University of Reading) Alessandro Battaglia (University of Bonn)
Robin Hogan, Chris Westbrook University of Reading, UK Alessandro Battaglia University of Leicester, UK Fast forward modelling of radar and lidar depolarization.
Ewan OConnor, Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth Drizzle comparisons.
Ewan OConnor, Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth, Nicolas Gaussiat Liquid water path from microwave radiometers.
Proposed new uses for the Ceilometer Network
Ewan OConnor, Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth, Nicolas Gaussiat Radar/lidar observations of boundary layer clouds.
Anthony Illingworth, + Robin Hogan, Ewan OConnor, U of Reading, UK and the CloudNET team (F, D, NL, S, Su). Reading: 19 Feb 08 – Meeting with Met office.
Robin Hogan, Andrew Barrett
Radar/lidar observations of boundary layer clouds
Robin Hogan, Julien Delanoë, Nicky Chalmers, Thorwald Stein, Anthony Illingworth University of Reading Evaluating and improving the representation of clouds.
Robin Hogan, Malcolm Brooks, Anthony Illingworth
Joint ECMWF-University meeting on interpreting data from spaceborne radar and lidar: AGENDA 09:30 Introduction University of Reading activities 09:35 Robin.
Modelling radar and lidar multiple scattering Robin Hogan
Robin Hogan Anthony Illingworth Ewan OConnor Nicolas Gaussiat Malcolm Brooks University of Reading Cloudnet products available from Chilbolton.
Towards “unified” retrievals of cloud, precipitation and aerosol from combined radar, lidar and radiometer observations Robin Hogan, Julien Delanoë, Nicola.
Robin Hogan Department of Meteorology University of Reading Cloud and Climate Studies using the Chilbolton Observatory.
Robin Hogan, Richard Allan, Nicky Chalmers, Thorwald Stein, Julien Delanoë University of Reading How accurate are the radiative properties of ice clouds.
Robin Hogan, Chris Westbrook University of Reading Lin Tian NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Phil Brown Met Office The importance of ice particle shape.
Use of ground-based radar and lidar to evaluate model clouds
Robin Hogan Ewan OConnor Changes to the Instrument Synergy/ Target Categorization product.
Robin Hogan & Anthony Illingworth Department of Meteorology University of Reading UK Parameterizing ice cloud inhomogeneity and the overlap of inhomogeneities.
Robin Hogan Ewan OConnor Anthony Illingworth Department of Meteorology, University of Reading UK PDFs of humidity and cloud water content from Raman lidar.
Integrated lidar backscatter: Quantifying the occurrence of supercooled water and specular reflection Robin Hogan and Anthony Illingworth Enhanced algorithm.
Robin Hogan Ewan OConnor Damian Wilson Malcolm Brooks Evaluation statistics of cloud fraction and water content.
Robin Hogan Julien Delanoe University of Reading Remote sensing of ice clouds from space.
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
Robin Hogan Ewan OConnor Anthony Illingworth Nicolas Gaussiat Malcolm Brooks Cloudnet Evaluating the clouds in European forecast models.
Robin Hogan Ewan OConnor Cloudnet level 3 products.
Modelling radar and lidar multiple scattering Modelling radar and lidar multiple scattering Robin Hogan The CloudSat radar and the Calipso lidar were launched.
Marc Schröder et al., FUB BBC2 Workshop, De Bilt, 10.´04 Problems related to absorption dependent retrievals and their validation Marc Schröder 1, Rene.
Exploiting multiple scattering in CALIPSO measurements to retrieve liquid cloud properties Nicola Pounder, Robin Hogan, Lee Hawkness-Smith, Andrew Barrett.
Robin Hogan Anthony Illingworth Marion Mittermaier Ice water content from radar reflectivity factor and temperature.
1. The problem of mixed-phase clouds All models except DWD underestimate mid-level cloud –Some have separate “radiatively inactive” snow (ECMWF, DWD) –Met.
Work Package 2 – Overview of instrumentation, data gathering and calibration issues Lidar Calibration Ewan O’Connor, Anthony Illingworth and Robin Hogan.
Atmospheric structure from lidar and radar Jens Bösenberg 1.Motivation 2.Layer structure 3.Water vapour profiling 4.Turbulence structure 5.Cloud profiling.
Remote sensing of Stratocumulus using radar/lidar synergy Ewan O’Connor, Anthony Illingworth & Robin Hogan University of Reading.
Lee Smith Anthony Illingworth
Figure 2.10 IPCC Working Group I (2007) Clouds and Radiation Through a Soda Straw.
Initial 3D isotropic fractal field An initial fractal cloud-like field can be generated by essentially performing an inverse 3D Fourier Transform on the.
METO 621 Lesson 27. Albedo 200 – 400 nm Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV) The previous slide shows the albedo of the earth viewed from the nadir.
IRCTR - International Research Centre for Telecommunication and Radar ATMOS Ice crystals properties retrieval within ice and mixed-phase clouds using the.
Observed and modelled long-term water cloud statistics for the Murg Valley Kerstin Ebell, Susanne Crewell, Ulrich Löhnert Institute for Geophysics and.
Direct Radiative Effect of aerosols over clouds and clear skies determined using CALIPSO and the A-Train Robert Wood with Duli Chand, Tad Anderson, Bob.
Lidar algorithms to retrieve cloud distribution, phase and optical depth Y. Morille, M. Haeffelin, B. Cadet, V. Noel Institut Pierre Simon Laplace SYMPOSIUM.
EarthCARE and snow Robin Hogan University of Reading.
Characterization of Arctic Mixed-Phase Cloudy Boundary Layers with the Adiabatic Assumption Paquita Zuidema*, Janet Intrieri, Sergey Matrosov, Matthew.
Introduction Invisible clouds in this study mean super-thin clouds which cannot be detected by MODIS but are classified as clouds by CALIPSO. These sub-visual.
Estimation of Cloud and Precipitation From Warm Clouds in Support of the ABI: A Pre-launch Study with A-Train Zhanqing Li, R. Chen, R. Kuligowski, R. Ferraro,
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research A partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology Southern Ocean cloud biases in ACCESS.
Evaluating forecasts of the evolution of the cloudy boundary layer using radar and lidar observations Andrew Barrett, Robin Hogan and Ewan O’Connor Submitted.
Robin Hogan Ewan O’Connor The Instrument Synergy/ Target Categorization product.
Matthew Shupe Ola Persson Paul Johnston Duane Hazen Clouds during ASCOS U. of Colorado and NOAA.
Radiometer Physics GmbH
Cloud optical properties: modeling and sensitivity study Ping Yang Texas A&M University May 28,2003 Madison, Wisconsin.
Use of Solar Reflectance Hyperspectral Data for Cloud Base Retrieval Andrew Heidinger, NOAA/NESDIS/ORA Washington D.C, USA Outline " Physical basis for.
Retrieval of Cloud Phase and Ice Crystal Habit From Satellite Data Sally McFarlane, Roger Marchand*, and Thomas Ackerman Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
TOMS Ozone Retrieval Sensitivity to Assumption of Lambertian Cloud Surface Part 1. Scattering Phase Function Xiong Liu, 1 Mike Newchurch, 1,2 Robert Loughman.
TOMS Ozone Retrieval Sensitivity to Assumption of Lambertian Cloud Surface Part 2. In-cloud Multiple Scattering Xiong Liu, 1 Mike Newchurch, 1,2 Robert.
Cloudnet meeting Oct Martial Haeffelin SIRTA Cloud and Radiation Observatory M. Haeffelin, A. Armstrong, L. Barthès, O. Bock, C. Boitel, D.
Robin Hogan Anthony Illingworth Marion Mittermaier Ice water content from radar reflectivity factor and temperature.
High-Resolution Polarimetric Radar Observation of Snow- Generating Cells Karly Reimel May 10, 2016.
Horizontally Oriented Ice and Precipitation in Maritime Clouds Using CloudSat, CALIOP, and MODIS Observations Alexa Ross Steve Ackerman Robert Holz University.
Emma Hopkin University of Reading
Radiometer Physics GmbH
Presentation transcript:

Lidar observations of mixed-phase clouds Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth, Ewan OConnor & Mukunda Dev Behera University of Reading UK Overview Enhanced algorithm for supercooled liquid water detection (Hogan et al. 2003, QJ in press) Specular reflection from horizontally aligned plate crystals: A blessing or a curse? Global distribution of stratiform supercooled water clouds from spaceborne lidar

Lidar and mixed-phase clouds Typical concs: ice 20 l -1, liquid droplets l -1 –The same mass of water is ~10 times more optically thick as liquid than as ice, so lidar return also 10 times greater –By contrast, D 6 dependence of radar makes the same mass of water ~1000 times more reflective as ice than as liquid! Radiation calculations on 2 case studies suggest –When supercooled liquid present it is usually more radiatively important than the ice, even though tends to form thin layers –Crudely represented in current models Small supercooled liquid droplets Large falling ice particles

Integrated lidar backscatter The integrated backscatter through a cloud of optical depth of is approximately (Platt 1973): –k = extinction/backscatter ratio (18.75 sr for droplets) – = multiple scattering factor (~0.7 for Chilbolton lidar ) For large optical depth it reduces to = (2k) -1 If z 1 and z 2 encompass the 300 m around the strongest echo in a profile, we can identify thin liquid water layers with greater than, say, 0.7

Example of supercooled water detection at Chilbolton Lidar echo Integrated lidar echo Microwave radiometer LWP

Results for lidar 5° from zenith Analysis of continuous Chilbolton CT75K lidar data from 2000 when looking off-zenith Frequency that cloud was observed Fraction of clouds containing supercooled water with >0.7

Results for zenith pointing lidar Analysis of Chilbolton lidar data from 1999 when pointing at zenith Enhanced occurrence between -10 and -20 °C: specular reflection from plates?

Supercooled water in models A year of data from the Met Office and ECMWF –Easy to calculate occurrence of supercooled water with > 0.7 Prognostic ice and liquid+vapour variables Prognostic cloud water: ice/liquid diagnosed from temperature

Specular reflection Specular reflection from planar crystals can occur within 1° of zenith or nadir –Enhanced backscatter with no accompanying increase in extinction (very low k): radiative properties difficult to infer –Integrated backscatter in ice can exceed the asymptote corresponding to optically thick liquid cloud (recall ~(2 k) -1 ) –Is locating plate crystals useful? Currently nadir viewing is being considered for spaceborne lidars Calipso and EarthCARE To quantify, require lidar to be precisely at zenith: 20 days of data analysed so far at Chilbolton –Algorithm calculates integrated backscatter from 2 km up –Specular reflection deemed to occur if this integral is more than 1.05 times the asymptote for liquid water –Excess above this value is attributed to pixels with highest

Probable plate crystals

Specular reflection: Results Around 20% of ice cloud profiles are strongly affected by specular reflection: enhancement > a factor of 2 –PDF of the maximum backscatter suggests that a further 30% of profiles are affected by specular reflection to a lesser extent –Big problem for interpreting backscatter measurements from space in terms of the radiative properties of ice clouds –Recommend operate spaceborne lidar a few degrees from nadir ~-23°C Pristine crystals are columns or needles Pristine crystals are plates Fraction of clouds with specularly reflecting crystals ~-9°C

Supercooled liquid water from the LITE lidar on the space shuttle in 1994 LITE took 45 hours of data 9-20 September 1994 We use 532 nm channel: appeared most sensitive Frequent changes in gain: only 10.5 hrs of data for which saturation level high enough to detect supercooled layers unambiguously Even then liquid water often saturated receiver, and multiple scattering more uncertain from space, so integral method not reliable km of ground covered: equivalent to 160 days of surface observation!

Occurrence versus height & latitude

… versus temperature & latitude

Comparison with Chilbolton Cloud fraction: much better coverage from space –Lidar does not need to penetrate the cloudy boundary layer Liquid detection: very similar, esp. below -10°C

Conclusions Have shown that spaceborne lidar can identify supercooled liquid water clouds across the globe –Problems with LITE: saturation & severe multiple scattering We will use long-term spaceborne lidar data: IceSat: launched 12 Jan 2003: High polar orbit, 2 wavelengths Calipso: launch in Dec 2004: Includes depolarisation channel