Evaluations of the Climatologies of Three Latest Cloud Satellite Products Based on Passive Sensors (ISCCP-H, Two CERES) against the CALIPSO-GOCCP

Abstract

In this study, the climatologies of three different satellite cloud products, all based on passive sensors (CERES Edition 4.1 [EBAF4.1 and SYN4.1] and ISCCP–H), were evaluated against the CALIPSO-GOCCP (GOCCP) data, which are based on active sensors and, hence, were treated as the reference. Based on monthly averaged data (ocean + land), the passive sensors underestimated the total cloud cover (TCC) at lower (TCC < 50%), but, overall, they correlated well with the GOCCP data (r = 0.97). Over land, the passive sensors underestimated the TCC, with a mean difference (MD) of −2.6%, followed by the EBAF4.1 and ISCCP-H data with a MD of −2.0%. Over the ocean, the CERES-based products overestimated the TCC, but the SYN4.1 agreed better with the GOCCP data. The ISCCP-H data on average underestimated the TCC both over oceanic and continental regions. The annual mean TCC distribution over the globe revealed that the passive sensors generally underestimated the TCC over continental dry regions in northern Africa and southeastern South America as compared to the GOCCP, particularly over the summer hemisphere. The CERES datasets overestimated the TCC over the Pacific Islands between the Indian and eastern Pacific Oceans, particularly during the winter hemisphere. The ISCCP-H data also underestimated the TCC, particularly over the southern hemisphere near 60° S where the other datasets showed a significantly enhanced TCC. The ISCCP data also showed less TCC when compared against the GOCCP data over the tropical regions, particularly over the southern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans near the equator and also over the polar regions where the satellite retrieval using the passive sensors was generally much more challenging. The calculated global mean root meant square deviation value for the ISCCP-H data was 6%, a factor of 2 higher than the CERES datasets. Based on these results, overall, the EBAF4.1 agreed better with the GOCCP data.