Validation of Forecast Cloud Parameters from Multispectral AIRS Radiances

The well-known CO₂ slicing technique which provides retrievals of cloud parameters (effective height and amount) is adapted in light of model validation using multispectral infrared sounders. The technique is applied to both real Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) radiances and to corresponding radiances simulated from global 6 h and 12 h forecasts for the 31 days of July 2008. The forecast model is the one used operationally at the Canadian Meteorological Centre. Radiances are simulated from the Radiative Transfer for the Television and Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) Operational Vertical Sounder (RTTOV) model. When compared to model output of cloud parameters, simulated retrievals help us understand systematic biases linked to the retrieval technique. Systematic errors of interest, attributed to forecast cloud parameters, are then more clearly assessed from real retrievals. This is the central idea of this paper. The proposed definition of model cloud top, based on cloud transmittance, corresponds well to the height derived from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) instrument. These lidar-derived cloud heights, in turn, confirm the nature of the biases produced by the CO₂ slicing technique (e.g., a negative bias increasing with height to about 2 km (approximately 50 hPa) for the highest clouds at 16 km (approximately 100 hPa)). Results suggest that the model has a tendency to produce an excess of low-level clouds below 2 km, compensated for by a deficit from 3 to 6 km. No significant differences are found between 6 h and 12 h forecast monthly fields, an indication that the model has sufficiently spun-up after a few hours. Retrieved global monthly cloud parameter fields are compared to independently derived products available from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) and AIRS standard processing. Significant differences are noted, linked to the different retrieval approaches, input data and resolution. This is further evidence that, for validation purposes, definitions of observed and model parameters must be consistent.