Skip all navigation and jump to content Jump to site navigation
NASA Logo - Goddard Space Flight Center

+ NASA Homepage

    
Goddard Space Flight Center
About MODIS News Data /images2 Science Team Science Team Science Team

   + Home
ABOUT MODIS
MODIS Publications Link
MODIS Presentations Link
MODIS Biographies Link
MODIS Science Team Meetings Link
 

 

 

Welch, RM, Asefi, S, Zeng, J, Nair, US, Han, QY, Lawton, RO, Ray, DK, Manoharan, VS (2008). Biogeography of tropical montane cloud forests. Part I: Remote sensing of cloud-base heights. JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY, 47(4), 960-975.

Abstract
Cloud-base heights over tropical montane cloud forests are determined using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) cloud products and National Centers for Environmental Prediction global tropospheric final analysis (FNL) fields. Cloud-base heights are computed by subtracting cloud thickness estimates from cloud-top height estimates. Cloud-top pressures determined from the current MODIS retrieval algorithm often have serious cloud-top pressure retrieval errors at pressures > 700 hPa. The problem can be easily remedied by matching cloud-top temperature derived from the 11-mu m channel to the dewpoint temperature profile (instead of the temperature profile) obtained from the FNL dataset. The FNL dataset at 1 spatial resolution produced results that were nearly equivalent to those derived from radiosonde measurements. The following three different approaches for estimating cloud thickness are examined: 1) the constant liquid water method, 2) the empirical method, and 3) the adiabatic model method. The retrieval technique is applied first for stratus clouds over U. S. airports for 12 cases, with cloud-base heights compared with ceilometer measurements. Mean square errors on the order of 200 m result. Then, the approach is applied to orographic clouds over Monteverde, Costa Rica, with estimated cloud-base heights compared with those derived from photographs. Mean square errors on the order of 100 m result. Both the empirical and adiabatic model approaches produce superior results when compared with the constant liquid water (CLW) approach. This is due to the fact that CLW is more sensitive to natural variations in cloud optical thickness.

DOI:
10.1175/2007JAMC1668.1

ISSN:
1558-8424

FirstGov logo Privacy Policy and Important Notices NASA logo

Curator: Brandon Maccherone
NASA Official: Shannell Frazier

NASA Home Page Goddard Space Flight Center Home Page