The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An assessment of differences between cloud effective particle radius retrievals for marine water clouds from three MODIS spectral bands
Open accessAbstract
The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) cloud product provides three separate 1 km resolution retrievals of cloud particle effective radii (r (sub e)), derived from 1.6, 2.1 and 3.7 micron band observations. In this study, differences among the three size retrievals for maritime water clouds (designated as r (sub e), 1.6 r (sub e), 2.1 and r (sub e),3.7) were systematically investigated through a series of case studies and global analyses. Substantial differences are found between r (sub e),3.7 and r (sub e),2.1 retrievals (delta r (sub e),3.7-2.l), with a strong dependence on cloud regime. The differences are typically small, within +/- 2 micron, over relatively spatially homogeneous coastal stratocumulus cloud regions. However, for trade wind cumulus regimes, r (sub e),3.7 was found to be substantially smaller than r (sub e),2.1, sometimes by more than 10 micron. The correlation of delta r(sub e),3.7-2.1 with key cloud parameters, including the cloud optical thickness (tau), r (sub e) and a cloud horizontal heterogeneity index (H-sigma) derived from 250 m resolution MODIS 0.86 micron band observations, were investigated using one month of MODIS Terra data. It was found that differences among the three r (sub e) retrievals for optically thin clouds (tau <5) are highly variable, ranging from - 15 micron to 10 micron, likely due to the large MODIS retrieval uncertainties when the cloud is thin. The delta r (sub e),3.7-2.1 exhibited a threshold-like dependence on both r (sub e),2.l and H-sigma. The re,3.7 is found to agree reasonably well with re,2.! when re,2.l is smaller than about 15J-Lm, but becomes increasingly smaller than re,2.1 once re,2.! exceeds this size. All three re retrievals showed little dependence when H-sigma < 0.3 (defined as standard deviation divided by the mean for the 250 m pixels within a 1 km pixel retrieval). However, for H-=sigma >0.3, both r (sub e),1.6 and r (sub e),2.1 were seen to increase quickly with H-sigma. On the other hand, r (sub e),3.7 statistics showed little dependence on H-sigma and remained relatively stable over the whole range of H-sigma values. Potential contributing causes to the substantial r (sub e),3.7 and r (sub e),2.1 differences are discussed. In particular, based on both 1-D and 3-D radiative transfer simulations, we have elucidated mechanisms by which cloud heterogeneity and 3-D radiative effects can cause large differences between r (sub e),3.7 and r (sub e),2.l retrievals for highly inhomogeneous clouds. Our results suggest that the contrast in observed delta r (sub e)3.7-2.1 between cloud regimes is correlated with increases in both cloud r (sub e) and H-sigma. We also speculate that in some highly inhomogeneous drizzling clouds, vertical structure induced by drizzle and 3-D radiative effects might operate together to cause dramatic differences between r (sub e),3.7 and r (sub e),2.1 retrievals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness
Albrecht, B. A. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.245.4923.1227 · Cited by 4,422
Estimates of the direct and indirect radiative forcing due to tropospheric aerosols: A review
Haywood, J., & Boucher, O. (2000) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/1999rg000078 · Cited by 2,097
Davis, A. B., & Marshak, A. (2010) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/73/2/026801 · Cited by 89
Cited by
Pincus, R., Platnick, S., Ackerman, S. A., Hemler, R. S., & Patrick Hofmann, R. J. (2012) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-11-00267.1 · Cited by 342
Self-citationStrong constraints on aerosol–cloud interactions from volcanic eruptions
Malavelle, F. F., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Gettelman, A., Clarisse, L., Bauduin, S., Allan, R. P., Karset, I. H. H., Kristjánsson, J. E., Oreopoulos, L., et al. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature22974 · Cited by 308
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Z., & Platnick, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2011-10-28
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- D20
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101104463
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An assessment of differences between cloud effective particle radius retrievals for marine water clouds from three MODIS spectral bands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2011jd016216
- The paper
- Zhang, Z., & Platnick, S. (2011). An assessment of differences between cloud effective particle radius retrievals for marine water clouds from three MODIS spectral bands. Journal of Geophysical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jd016216
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.