Filters

2013 - 20162

More filters

20192
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Merk, D. × WGL Institute: TROPOS ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Detection of convective initiation using Meteosat SEVIRI: Implementation in and verification with the tracking and nowcasting algorithm Cb-TRAM
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2013) Merk, D.; Zinner, T.
    In this paper a new detection scheme for convective initiation (CI) under day and night conditions is presented. The new algorithm combines the strengths of two existing methods for detecting CI with geostationary satellite data. It uses the channels of the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) onboard Meteosat Second Generation (MSG). For the new algorithm five infrared (IR) criteria from the Satellite Convection Analysis and Tracking algorithm (SATCAST) and one high-resolution visible channel (HRV) criteria from Cb-TRAM were adapted. This set of criteria aims to identify the typical development of quickly developing convective cells in an early stage. The different criteria include time trends of the 10.8 IR channel, and IR channel differences, as well as their time trends. To provide the trend fields an optical-flow-based method is used: the pyramidal matching algorithm, which is part of Cb-TRAM. The new detection scheme is implemented in Cb-TRAM, and is verified for seven days which comprise different weather situations in central Europe. Contrasted with the original early-stage detection scheme of Cb-TRAM, skill scores are provided. From the comparison against detections of later thunderstorm stages, which are also provided by Cb-TRAM, a decrease in false prior warnings (false alarm ratio) from 91 to 81% is presented, an increase of the critical success index from 7.4 to 12.7%, and a decrease of the BIAS from 320 to 146% for normal scan mode. Similar trends are found for rapid scan mode. Most obvious is the decline of false alarms found for the synoptic class "cold air" masses.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Investigation of the adiabatic assumption for estimating cloud micro- and macrophysical properties from satellite and ground observations
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2016) Merk, D.; Deneke, H.; Pospichal, B.; Seifert, P.
    Cloud properties from both ground-based as well as from geostationary passive satellite observations have been used previously for diagnosing aerosol–cloud interactions. In this investigation, a 2-year data set together with four selected case studies are analyzed with the aim of evaluating the consistency and limitations of current ground-based and satellite-retrieved cloud property data sets. The typically applied adiabatic cloud profile is modified using a sub-adiabatic factor to account for entrainment within the cloud. Based on the adiabatic factor obtained from the combination of ground-based cloud radar, ceilometer and microwave radiometer, we demonstrate that neither the assumption of a completely adiabatic cloud nor the assumption of a constant sub-adiabatic factor is fulfilled (mean adiabatic factor 0.63 ± 0.22). As cloud adiabaticity is required to estimate the cloud droplet number concentration but is not available from passive satellite observations, an independent method to estimate the adiabatic factor, and thus the influence of mixing, would be highly desirable for global-scale analyses. Considering the radiative effect of a cloud described by the sub-adiabatic model, we focus on cloud optical depth and its sensitivities. Ground-based estimates are here compared vs. cloud optical depth retrieved from the Meteosat SEVIRI satellite instrument resulting in a bias of −4 and a root mean square difference of 16. While a synergistic approach based on the combination of ceilometer, cloud radar and microwave radiometer enables an estimate of the cloud droplet concentration, it is highly sensitive to radar calibration and to assumptions about the moments of the droplet size distribution. Similarly, satellite-based estimates of cloud droplet concentration are uncertain. We conclude that neither the ground-based nor satellite-based cloud retrievals applied here allow a robust estimate of cloud droplet concentration, which complicates its use for the study of aerosol–cloud interactions.