• Ackerman, S., R. Holz, R. Frey, E. Eloranta, B. Maddux, and M. McGill, 2008: Cloud detection with MODIS. Part II: Validation. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 25 , 10731086.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barnes, L. R., D. M. Schultz, E. C. Gruntfest, M. H. Hayden, and C. C. Benight, 2009: CORRIGENDUM: False alarm rate or false alarm ratio? Wea. Forecasting, 24 , 14521454.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Berg, L., and R. Stull, 2002: Accuracy of point and line measures of boundary layer cloud amount. J. Appl. Meteor., 41 , 640650.

  • Dabberdt, W., J. Koistinen, J. Poutiainen, E. Saltikoff, and H. Turtiainen, 2005: Research: The Helsinki mesoscale testbed: An invitation to use a new 3D observation network. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86 , 906907.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daloze, J-F., and M. Haeffelin, 2005: Validation of SAFNWC/MSG cloud top height using ground-based lidar and radar measurements. Visiting Scientist Rep., Météo-France, 37 pp. [Available online at http://www.nwcsaf.org].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Derrien, M., and H. L. Gléau, 2005: MSG/SEVIRI cloud mask and type from SAFNWC. Int. J. Remote Sens., 26 (21) 47074732.

  • Dybbroe, A., K. Karlsson, and A. Thoss, 2005a: NWCSAF AVHRR cloud detection and analysis using dynamic thresholds and radiative transfer modeling. Part I: Algorithm description. J. Appl. Meteor., 44 , 3954.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dybbroe, A., K. Karlsson, and A. Thoss, 2005b: NWCSAF AVHRR cloud detection and analysis using dynamic thresholds and radiative transfer modeling. Part II: Tuning and validation. J. Appl. Meteor., 44 , 5571.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Efron, B., and R. J. Tibshirani, 1994: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 456 pp.

  • Emeis, S., C. Münkel, S. Vogt, W. J. Müller, and K. Schäfer, 2004: Atmospheric boundary-layer structure from simultaneous SODAR, RASS, and ceilometer measurements. Atmos. Environ., 38 , 273286.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EUMETSAT, 2007: MSG level 1.5 image data format description. EUM/MSG/ICD/105, v6, 127 pp. [Available online at http://www.eumetsat.int].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EUMETSAT, 2009: AVHRR Level 1b Product Guide. EUM/OPS-EPS/MAN/04/0029, v3, 126 pp. [Available online at http://www.eumetsat.int].

  • Hamill, T., 1999: Hypothesis tests for evaluating numerical precipitation forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 14 , 155167.

  • Heidinger, A., V. Anne, and C. Dean, 2002: Using MODIS to estimate cloud contamination of the AVHRR data record. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 19 , 586601.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Henderson-Sellers, A., and K. McGuffie, 1990: Are cloud amounts estimated from satellite sensor and conventional surface-based observations related? Int. J. Remote Sens., 11 , 543550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jolliffe, I. T., and D. B. Stephenson, Eds. 2003: Forecast Verification: A Practitioners Guide in Atmospheric Science. Wiley, 254 pp.

  • Joro, S., and A. Dybbroe, 2004: Validating the AVHRR cloud top temperature and height product using weather radar data. Visiting Scientist Rep., SMHI, 8 pp. [Available online at http://www.nwcsaf.org].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Karlsson, K-G., and A. Dybbroe, 2010: Evaluation of Arctic cloud products from the EUMETSAT climate monitoring satellite application facility based on CALIPSO–CALIOP observations. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10 , 17891807.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Khlopenkov, K., and A. Trishchenko, 2007: SPARC: New cloud, snow, and cloud shadow detection scheme for historical 1-km AVHHR data over Canada. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 24 , 322343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lutz, H-J., 1999: Cloud processing for METEOSAT Second Generation. Tech. Memo. 4, EUMETSAT, 34 pp. [Available online at http://www.eumetsat.int].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, S. D., and Coauthors, 2006: NexSat: Previewing NPOESS/VIIRS imagery capabilities. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87 , 433446.

  • Patton, A., D. N. Politis, and H. White, 2009: Correction to “Automatic block-length selection for the dependent bootstrap” by D. Politis and H. White. Econ. Rev., 28 (4) 372375.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ravila, P., J. Heinonen, and J. Räsänen, 2002: Multiple instrument sky condition algorithm. Preprints, 18th Int. Conf. on Interactive Information and Processing Systems (IIPS) for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology, Orlando, FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 11.7. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/annual2002/techprogram/paper_28322.htm].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rodriguez, D., 1998: On the comparability of cloud fractions derived from whole sky imager and ceilometer data. Tech. Rep. UCRL-ID-129839, Lawrence Livemore National Library, 20 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saunders, R., M. Matricardi, and P. Brunel, 1999: An improved fast radiative transfer model for assimilation of satellite radiance observations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125 , 14071425.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saunders, R., and Coauthors, 2007: A comparison of radiative transfer models for simulating Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) radiances. J. Geophys. Res., 112 , D01S90. doi:10.1029/2006JD007088.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seemann, S. W., E. E. Borbas, R. O. Knuteson, G. R. Stephenson, and H-L. Huang, 2008: Development of a global infrared land surface emissivity database for application to clear sky sounding retrievals from multispectral satellite radiance measurements. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 47 , 108123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stephenson, D., 2000: Use of the “odds ratio” for diagnosing forecast skill. Wea. Forecasting, 15 , 221232.

  • Tjemkes, S. A., and J. Schmetz, 1997: Synthetic satellite radiances using the radiance sampling method. J. Geophys. Res., 102 , 18071818.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vaisala, 2004: Ceilometer CL31: User’s guide. Vaisala Oyj, Vantaa, Finland, 19 pp.

  • Wauben, W., 2002: Automation of visual observations at KNMI; (ii) comparison of automated cloud reports with routine visual observations. Symp. Observations, Data Assimilation, and Probabilistic Prediction, Orlando, FL, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P1.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilks, D. S., 2006: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. 2nd ed. Academic Press, 648 pp.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 4 4 4

Comparison of Satellite Cloud Masks with Ceilometer Sky Conditions in Southern Finland

View More View Less
  • 1 EUMETSAT, Darmstadt, Germany
  • | 2 Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Restricted access

Abstract

The cloud mask is an essential product derived from satellite data. Whereas cloud analysis applications typically make use of information from cloudy pixels, many other applications require cloud-free conditions. For this reason many organizations have their own cloud masks tuned to serve their particular needs. Being a fundamental product, continuous quality monitoring and validation of these cloud masks are vital. This study evaluated the performance of the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) Meteorological Products Extraction Facility cloud mask (MPEF), together with the Nowcasting Satellite Application Facility (SAFNWC) cloud masks provided by Météo-France (SAFNWC/MSG) and the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SAFNWC/PPS), in the high-latitude area of greater Helsinki in Finland. The first two used the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) instrument from the geostationary Meteosat-8 satellite, whereas the last used the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument on board the polar-orbiting NOAA satellite series. Ceilometer data from the Helsinki Testbed, an extensive observation network covering the greater Helsinki area in Finland, were used as reference data in the cloud mask comparison. A computational method, called bootstrapping, is introduced to account for the strong temporal and spatial correlation of the ceilometer observations. The method also allows the calculation of the confidence intervals (CI) for the results. This study comprised data from February and August 2006. In general, the SAFNWC/MSG algorithm performed better than MPEF. Differences were found especially in the early morning low cloud detection. The SAFNWC/PPS cloud mask performed very well in August, better than geostationary-based masks, but had problems in February when its performance was worse. The use of the CIs gave the results more depth, and their use should be encouraged.

Corresponding author address: Sauli Joro, EUMETSAT, Eumetsat Allee 1, D-64295 Darmstadt, Germany. Email: sauli.joro@eumetsat.int

Abstract

The cloud mask is an essential product derived from satellite data. Whereas cloud analysis applications typically make use of information from cloudy pixels, many other applications require cloud-free conditions. For this reason many organizations have their own cloud masks tuned to serve their particular needs. Being a fundamental product, continuous quality monitoring and validation of these cloud masks are vital. This study evaluated the performance of the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) Meteorological Products Extraction Facility cloud mask (MPEF), together with the Nowcasting Satellite Application Facility (SAFNWC) cloud masks provided by Météo-France (SAFNWC/MSG) and the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SAFNWC/PPS), in the high-latitude area of greater Helsinki in Finland. The first two used the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) instrument from the geostationary Meteosat-8 satellite, whereas the last used the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument on board the polar-orbiting NOAA satellite series. Ceilometer data from the Helsinki Testbed, an extensive observation network covering the greater Helsinki area in Finland, were used as reference data in the cloud mask comparison. A computational method, called bootstrapping, is introduced to account for the strong temporal and spatial correlation of the ceilometer observations. The method also allows the calculation of the confidence intervals (CI) for the results. This study comprised data from February and August 2006. In general, the SAFNWC/MSG algorithm performed better than MPEF. Differences were found especially in the early morning low cloud detection. The SAFNWC/PPS cloud mask performed very well in August, better than geostationary-based masks, but had problems in February when its performance was worse. The use of the CIs gave the results more depth, and their use should be encouraged.

Corresponding author address: Sauli Joro, EUMETSAT, Eumetsat Allee 1, D-64295 Darmstadt, Germany. Email: sauli.joro@eumetsat.int

Save