JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D19209, doi:10.

1029/2011JD016050, 2011

Improvements of top‐of‐atmosphere and surface irradiance

computations with CALIPSO‐, CloudSat‐, and MODIS‐derived
cloud and aerosol properties
Seiji Kato,1 Fred G. Rose,2 Sunny Sun‐Mack,2 Walter F. Miller,2 Yan Chen,2
David A. Rutan,2 Graeme L. Stephens,3 Norman G. Loeb,1 Patrick Minnis,1
Bruce A. Wielicki,1 David M. Winker,1 Thomas P. Charlock,1 Paul W. Stackhouse Jr.,1
Kuan‐Man Xu,1 and William D. Collins4
Received 31 March 2011; revised 26 July 2011; accepted 26 July 2011; published 14 October 2011.

[1] One year of instantaneous top‐of‐atmosphere (TOA) and surface shortwave

and longwave irradiances are computed using cloud and aerosol properties derived from
instruments on the A‐Train Constellation: the Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal
Polarization (CALIOP) on the Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite
Observation (CALIPSO) satellite, the CloudSat Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR), and
the Aqua Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS). When modeled
irradiances are compared with those computed with cloud properties derived from MODIS
radiances by a Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) cloud algorithm,
the global and annual mean of modeled instantaneous TOA irradiances decreases by
12.5 W m−2 (5.0%) for reflected shortwave and 2.5 W m−2 (1.1%) for longwave
irradiances. As a result, the global annual mean of instantaneous TOA irradiances agrees
better with CERES‐derived irradiances to within 0.5W m−2 (out of 237.8 W m−2) for
reflected shortwave and 2.6W m−2 (out of 240.1 W m−2) for longwave irradiances. In
addition, the global annual mean of instantaneous surface downward longwave irradiances
increases by 3.6 W m−2 (1.0%) when CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties are
used. The global annual mean of instantaneous surface downward shortwave irradiances
also increases by 8.6 W m−2 (1.6%), indicating that the net surface irradiance increases
when CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties are used. Increasing the surface
downward longwave irradiance is caused by larger cloud fractions (the global annual mean
by 0.11, 0.04 excluding clouds with optical thickness less than 0.3) and lower cloud base
heights (the global annual mean by 1.6 km). The increase of the surface downward
longwave irradiance in the Arctic exceeds 10 W m−2 (∼4%) in winter because CALIOP
and CPR detect more clouds in comparison with the cloud detection by the CERES cloud
algorithm during polar night. The global annual mean surface downward longwave
irradiance of 345.4 W m−2 is estimated by combining the modeled instantaneous surface
longwave irradiance computed with CALIOP and CPR cloud profiles with the global
annual mean longwave irradiance from the CERES product (AVG), which includes the
diurnal variation of the irradiance. The estimated bias error is −1.5 W m−2 and the
uncertainty is 6.9 W m−2. The uncertainty is predominately caused by the near‐surface
temperature and column water vapor amount uncertainties.
Citation: Kato, S., et al. (2011), Improvements of top‐of‐atmosphere and surface irradiance computations with CALIPSO‐,
CloudSat‐, and MODIS‐derived cloud and aerosol properties, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D19209, doi:10.1029/2011JD016050.

1
Climate Science Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, 1. Introduction
Virginia, USA.
2
Science Systems and Applications Inc., Hampton, Virginia, USA.
[2] The radiation budget at the Earth’s surface plays a
3
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, critical role in the energy and water cycles of the planet. The
Pasadena, California, USA. global mean net surface irradiance is balanced by the surface
4
Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, latent and sensible heat fluxes and ocean heating rate [Wong
California, USA. et al., 2006]. In addition, the radiative net energy deposition
in the atmosphere and vertical and horizontal profiles of the
Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148‐0227/11/2011JD016050 energy deposition determine the dynamics in the atmosphere.

D19209 1 of 21

D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES
Understanding how the radiation at the surface, within the
atmosphere and top‐of‐atmosphere change in response to
climate forcing also requires an understanding of cloud,
water vapor, and surface feedback processes. Sustained global
observations of the radiation budget at different levels in the
atmosphere and the associated atmospheric and surface
properties are thus critical [Wielicki et al., 1995].
[3] Unfortunately, direct observations of surface irradiance
are currently available only over a limited number of ground
sites over land, and a handful of offshore and island loca-
tions. Therefore, a global estimate of the surface radiation
budget must be determined indirectly through radiative transfer
model calculations initialized using satellite‐derived cloud
and aerosol properties and meteorological data from assimi-
lation models. Until the launches of the Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar
and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO)
[Winker et al., 2010] and CloudSat [Stephens et al., 2008]
missions, global cloud properties have only been available
from passive satellite instruments. For example, Zhang et al.
[2004] used data from the International Satellite Cloud Cli-
matology Project (ISCCP[Rossow and Schiffer, 1991]) to
estimate global surface irradiances. The surface irradiance
estimate by Zhang et al. [2004] relied on cloud retrievals
derived from operational weather satellites (geostationary and
polar orbiting satellites), with limited calibration accuracy.
The surface irradiance estimated in the Clouds and the Earth’s
Radiant Energy System (CERES) project relies on Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) derived cloud
and aerosol properties and also uses CERES‐derived top‐of‐
atmosphere (TOA) irradiance as a constraint [Charlock et al.,
2006]. Despite the relative success in using such data sets, the
accuracies of surface radiation estimates are constrained by
the limitations in accurately retrieving all of the necessary
cloud parameters needed for the radiative transfer models.
[4] As pointed out by Trenberth et al. [2009], one challenge
in estimating the surface radiation budget is properly deter-
mining the cloud base height because, in passive satellite
instrument retrievals, it is indirectly derived from the cloud
top height. In addition, the cloud top height retrieval itself
contains errors because it is usually determined by a combi-
nation of the effective cloud top temperature and vertical
temperature profile. Furthermore, the cloud base height esti-
mate used in irradiance computations relies on climatological
vertical cloud profiles [Zhang et al., 2004] or an empirical
relationship based on the cloud physical thickness, cloud top
temperature, and optical thickness [Minnis et al., 2010, 2011].
Both climatological cloud profiles and the empirical rela-
tionship were derived from limited sets of data and therefore
cannot provide an accurate cloud base for all regions and
seasons.
[5] CALIPSO and CloudSat, launched in 2006 as part
of NASA’s A‐train satellite constellation, provide detailed
information on cloud and aerosol vertical profiles from
tropics to the poles. When cloud vertical profiles derived from
Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP
[Hunt et al., 2009]) and Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR [Im
et al., 2005]) data are used in surface irradiance computa-
tions, uncertainty in the surface irradiance, especially in the
downward longwave irradiance, is expected to decrease, pro-
vided that the vertical cloud profile taken over their ground
track represents a global mean cloud profile (i.e., the sampling
error does not exceed modeling errors).
2 of 21
21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209
[6] In this paper, we investigate how CALIOP‐ and CPR‐
derived cloud vertical profiles can improve irradiance com-
putations compared with those in which only MODIS‐derived
cloud properties are used. Four different modeled irradiance
sets are considered, as explained in section 2. Comparisons
of modeled TOA irradiances with those derived empirically
from CERES broadband radiance measurements, and surface
irradiances computed with and without CALIOP‐ and CPR‐
derived properties are presented in section 3. Uncertainties in
the inputs used for the irradiance computations are estimated
in section 4. Comparisons between modeled and observed
surface longwave irradiance are presented in section 5. Last,
how CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties improve
irradiance computations is discussed in section 6.
2. Data Set
[7] In order to assess the irradiance estimate improvement,
we use four sets of surface irradiance computations extracted
from three different data products in this study. These four
sets of modeled irradiances use nearly identical radiative
transfer models. One data product is the CCCM (CALIPSO
CloudSat CERES and MODIS, Edition B1 [Kato et al.,
2010], hereafter CCCM_CC). CCCM contains cloud and
aerosol vertical profiles derived from CALIOP (Version 3)
and CPR (Revision 4), as well as cloud properties derived
from MODIS radiances by a CERES cloud algorithm [Minnis
et al., 2011; Trepte et al., 2010]. It also contains the vertical
irradiance profile computed with cloud properties determined
using a combination of CALIOP, CPR, and MODIS data. In
addition, it contains the TOA and surface irradiances and
irradiances at three atmospheric pressure levels (500, 200,
and 70 hPa) computed with cloud properties derived from
MODIS only (hereafter this irradiance set is referred as
CCCM_MODISonly). The algorithm that uses only MODIS
radiances is hereafter referred to as the B1 cloud algorithm.
By comparing CCCM_CC and CCCM_MODISonly com-
puted over the CALIOP and CPR ground track, we assess the
improvement of instantaneous irradiances due to inclusion of
the CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud vertical profiles in the
computations. The third set of modeled irradiances is from
the CERES standard product Cloud and Radiative Swath
(CRS, Terra edition 2G) [Charlock et al., 2006], which uses
only MODIS‐derived cloud [Minnis et al., 2011] properties
(hereafter this irradiance set is referred as CRS). Because
MODIS covers the entire globe daily, we can assess the error
caused by the nadir view sampling by subsetting irradiances
computed for nadir view CERES footprints and comparing
them with irradiances computed for the full swath using CRS.
The fourth set of modeled irradiances is from the CERES
standard product AVG (Terra Edition 2C). AVG contains
monthly mean gridded modeled TOA and surface irradiances.
The monthly mean irradiance is computed from daily mean
values that account for a diurnal cycle of cloud properties
retrieved from geostationary satellites and temperature and
humidity profiles from reanalysis [Young et al., 1998] (here-
after this irradiance set is referred as AVG). Therefore, we
can assess the improvement of the global mean surface
irradiance estimated with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud
profiles with the use of these four sets.
[8] Modeled irradiances of CCCM used for this study
are from January 2008 through December 2008, modeled

D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES
Figure 1. Schematic of a CERES footprint containing the CALIPSO and CloudSat ground track.
irradiances of CRS are from January, April, July, and
October 2008, and modeled irradiances of AVG are from
January 2001 through December 2004. Note that the use of
AVG data from a different year does not cause a significant
problem, because we only use irradiances from AVG aver-
aged annually and globally.
2.1. CALIPSO and CloudSat Merged Cloud Profiles
and Irradiance Computations for CCCM_CC
[9] Because the method of integrating the CALIOP‐ and
CPR‐derived cloud masks is described in Kato et al. [2010],
only a brief description is provided here. Cloud vertical
profiles from CALIOP and CPR are initially merged into 1 km
horizontal resolution vertical cloud profiles (Figure 1). Starting
with a CALIOP‐derived cloud profile, we add cloud bound-
aries from CPR in the following cases: (i) when CPR detects
a cloud boundary more than 480 m above or below cloud
boundaries detected by CALIOP, the CPR‐derived boundary
is inserted; (ii) when the CALIOP signal is completely
attenuated by clouds (attenuation level), and the CPR‐derived
cloud base is lower than the attenuation level, the CPR‐
derived cloud base is used; (iii) otherwise, the attenuation
level is used as the cloud base. As a result of these processes,
CALIOP provides approximately 85% of cloud top heights
and 77% of cloud base heights for the merged cloud profiles.
[10] The resulting merged cloud profiles are then collocated
with CERES footprints, which are approximately 20 km in
size (Figure 1). To maintain the horizontal resolution used in
the original CALIPSO and CloudSat products, 1 km horizontal
atmospheric columns that contain the same cloud vertical
profiles are grouped together (cloud group). The cloud‐
grouping process is described in detail by Kato et al. [2010].
[11] Irradiance vertical profiles are computed for each
cloud group by the use of a radiative transfer model (FLux
3 of 21
21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209
model of CERES with k‐distribution and correlated‐k for
Radiation (FLCKKR) [Fu and Liou, 1993; Fu et al., 1997;
Kratz and Rose, 1999; Kato et al., 1999, 2005; Rose et al.,
2006] with a two‐stream approximation using the independent
column approximation [Stephens et al., 1991]. The hierarchy
of cloud optical property sources used in the irradiance
computations and the details of the irradiance computations
are explained in Appendix A. In brief, cloud properties
derived from CALIOP, CPR, or MODIS are used in the
computations. In retrieving cloud properties from MODIS
radiances, the B1 cloud algorithm is forced to retrieve the
uppermost cloud top effective height given by the collocated
merged CALIOP and CPR cloud profile (hereafter, enhanced
cloud algorithm, see Appendix A for detail) when a single‐
layer cloud is present in the pixel. As a consequence, the
enhanced cloud algorithm uses a better cloud top effective
temperature, which leads to a better estimate of the emission
contribution in near‐infrared (IR) channels. Note that when
multilayer clouds are present (about 50% of cloudy cases
[Kato et al., 2010]), the enhanced algorithm is the same as
the B1 cloud algorithm. Therefore, the CALIOP‐ and CPR‐
derived cloud properties affect the clouds used in irradiance
computations in two ways; first, by directly providing better
cloud mask and profiles, and second, by improving cloud
retrievals within the enhanced cloud algorithm.
[12] In the order of their use in the irradiance computations,
the aerosol optical thickness sources are CALIOP, MYD04
[Remer et al., 2005], and the Model of Atmospheric Transport
and Chemistry (MATCH [Collins et al., 2001]). The aerosol
optical thickness is averaged over a CERES footprint. A
CERES footprint could contain multiple vertical aerosol
layers having different optical thicknesses, but there is no
horizontal aerosol optical thickness variability within a given
aerosol layer. CALIOP‐derived aerosol optical thicknesses

D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES
are averaged by excluding values with “the column optical
depth aerosol” with an uncertainty of 99.99 (i.e., default value
for cases when the CALIPSO extinction calculation failed).
In addition, noise in the lidar signal can produce negative
extinction values when aerosol loading is low and back-
ground noise is high. These negative values occasionally
result in a small, negative column optical thickness. Although
they are rare, large negative optical thickness (less than −0.1)
can produce erroneous retrievals and are excluded in the
averaging process. Aerosol optical properties, such as wave-
length dependence of the aerosol optical thickness, asymmetry
parameter, and single scattering albedo, are determined by
assigning aerosol types based on Optical Properties of Aero-
sols and Clouds (OPAC) [Hess et al., 1998] and Tegen and
Lacis [1996]. Aerosol types include small dust, large dust,
sulfate, sea salt, soot, soluble particles, and insoluble parti-
cles. The aerosol type is chosen mostly based on MATCH,
except for dust aerosols. When the CALIOP detects dust and
polluted dust, large and small dust aerosol models, respec-
tively, are used.
[13] Temperature and humidity profiles used in CCCM_CC,
CCCM_MODISonly, and CRS irradiance computations are
from the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS‐5) Data
Assimilation System reanalysis [Rienecker et al., 2008],
while the profiles used in AVG irradiance computations
are from GEOS‐4 [Bloom et al., 2005]. The GEOS‐4 and
‐5 temperature and relative humidity profiles have a tem-
poral resolution of 6 h. Spatially, the profiles are regridded
to 1° × 1° maps. Skin temperatures are from both GEOS‐4
and GEOS‐5 at a 3‐hourly resolution, the native temporal
resolution of GEOS‐4 skin temperature, although the GEOS‐5
product has a higher 1‐hourly native resolution available.
Gridded 6‐hourly and 1° × 1° temperature and humidity
profiles and the 3‐hourly and 1° × 1° skin temperature are
further linearly interpolated in space and time to the CERES
footprint observation times and locations. Note that the
effect on GEOS‐5 and ‐4 temperature and humidity dif-
ferences yields a global mean surface downward short-
wave and longwave irradiances difference of −0.7 W m−2 and
1.2 W m−2, respectively. Because the longwave irradiance
difference is smaller than the uncertainty discussed in
section 4, we neglect the GEOS‐5 and ‐4 differences in this
study.
[14] CCCM_MODISonly irradiances are computed using
cloud properties derived by the B1 cloud algorithm over the
entire CERES footprint using MODIS radiances collocated
with the CERES footprint. The B1 algorithm and irradiance
computations are similar to those used for CRS, which are
explained in section 2.2.
2.2. Irradiance Computations in CERES CRS
and AVG Products
[15] The CRS product contains instantaneous modeled
irradiances computed with MODIS‐derived cloud properties.
The CERES Ed2 cloud algorithm [Minnis et al., 2011], the
precursor to the B1 algorithm, is used to derive cloud prop-
erties from MODIS 1 km resolution spectral radiances. A
cloud within a 1 km MODIS pixel is assumed to be a hori-
zontally uniform single‐layer overcast cloud. Because the
size of a CERES footprint is 20 km at nadir, there are more
than 150 sets of retrieved cloud properties (retrieved from
one out of two scan lines and one out of two pixels in a scan
4 of 21
21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209
line, i.e., 25% of pixels within a footprint) within a CERES
footprint. Cloud properties derived within a CERES foot-
print are averaged using the CERES instrument point spread
function [Smith, 1994] as a weighting function. In averaging
the cloud properties, two cloud top heights within a CERES
footprint are retained and cloud properties of high and low
clouds are averaged separately.
[16] AVG contains monthly gridded modeled irradiances
computed with cloud properties derived from MODIS and
3‐hourly geostationary satellites. Footprint‐level cloud prop-
erties are gridded in 1° × 1° spatial grids and in 1‐hourly
temporal grids (hour boxes). Up to four cloud heights (cloud
types) are retained for each hour box within a 1° × 1° grid box.
Cloud properties for hour boxes other than those for the Aqua
overpass time are derived from geostationary satellites. Both
linear and logarithmic means of cloud optical thicknesses are
computed for each cloud type. The distribution of cloud
optical thickness expressed as a gamma distribution is esti-
mated from the linear and logarithmic cloud optical thick-
ness means [Barker 1996; Oreopoulos and Barker, 1999;
Kato et al., 2005]. Once the distribution of cloud optical
thickness is estimated for each cloud type, the gamma‐
weighted two‐stream radiative transfer model is used to
separately compute the shortwave irradiance vertical profile
for four cloud types in AVG and two clouds types in CRS. A
detailed description of the gamma‐weighted two‐stream
radiative transfer model used for the irradiance computation is
given by Kato et al. [2005]. The logarithmic mean optical
thickness is used in the longwave irradiance computation
with a modified two‐stream approximation [Toon et al.
1989; Fu et al., 1997]. In addition, irradiance under a clear‐
sky condition is always computed for every grid box in AVG
and for every footprint for CRS. The cloud base height,
which largely influences the surface downward longwave
irradiance in midlatitude and polar regions, is estimated by
an empirical formula described by Minnis et al. [2011] for
CCCM_MODISonly, CRS, and AVG.
[17] Other inputs to the two‐stream models are ozone
amount [Yang et al., 2000] and ocean spectral surface albedo
from Jin et al. [2004], which are used for all four sets.
Broadband land surface albedos are inferred from MODIS
narrowband albedos [Moody et al., 2005] for CCCM_CC and
CCCM_MODISonly and from the clear‐sky TOA albedo
derived from CERES measurements [Rutan et al., 2009] for
CRS and AVG.
3. Results
[18] Before investigating surface irradiances, a reasonable
agreement of the modeled TOA irradiance with the CERES‐
derived irradiance by angular distribution models is a good
consistency check of modeled irradiances. We therefore
compare modeled TOA irradiances with CERES‐derived
irradiances and investigate how CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived
cloud profiles improve the modeled TOA instantaneous
irradiance.
3.1. TOA Irradiance
[19] Figure 2 shows the difference between modeled and
CERES‐derived shortwave and longwave monthly zonal mean
irradiances for January and July 2008. Note that Ed3 CERES
calibration constants and Ed2 angular distribution models
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 2. Monthly zonal TOA shortwave and longwave modeled irradiance differences from CERES‐
derived irradiances for (top) January 2008 and (bottom) July 2008. CC indicates the flux computed with
CALIOP‐, CPR‐, and MODIS‐derived cloud and aerosol properties. Shortwave irradiance is the daytime
average of instantaneous irradiances, and the longwave irradiance is the day and nighttime average of
instantaneous irradiances.

[Loeb et al., 2005] are used to derive CERES irradiances.
CCCM_CC TOA reflected shortwave irradiance is smaller
than CCCM_MODISonly TOA reflected shortwave irradi-
ance. As a result, CCCM_CC TOA reflected shortwave irra-
diances agree better with CERES‐derived irradiances,
particularly in the summer hemisphere. CALIOP‐ and CPR‐
derived cloud properties increase the monthly zonal mean
TOA longwave for most latitudes (Figure 2). As a result, the
CCCM_CC TOA longwave irradiances also agree better
with the CERES‐derived longwave irradiance. Table 1
summarizes the modeled TOA reflected shortwave and
longwave irradiance differences from those derived from
CERES‐observed radiances. The global and annual mean
improvement due to the use of CALIPSO‐ and CloudSat‐
derived cloud vertical profiles is 12.5 W m−2 (5.0%) for
reflected shortwave and 2.5 W m−2 (1.1%) for longwave.
The reason for a better agreement of the CCCM_CC TOA
irradiance with CERES‐derived irradiance is discussed in
section 5.2 after the surface irradiance section because the
reason for both TOA and surface irradiance improvements
is primarily caused by the more accurate cloud vertical
profile.

5 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Table 1. Global Annual Mean (2008) of TOA Instantaneous Irradiance Difference

Reflected Shortwavea (W m−2) Longwave (OLR) (W m−2)
With CALIOP and CPR clouds MODIS Only With CALIOP and CPR Clouds MODIS Only
CERES‐derived irradiance 237.8 237.8 240.1 240.1
Model ‐ CERES −0.49 12.02 −2.61 −5.13
a
Daytime only.

3.2. Surface Irradiance
[20] Figure 3 shows the surface downward shortwave
(Figure 3, left) and longwave (Figure 3, right) irradiance
differences computed with and without CALIOP‐ and CPR‐
derived cloud properties. The difference is defined as
CCCM_MODISonly minus CCCM_CC. Both the surface
downward shortwave and longwave irradiances computed
with CALIOP and CPR cloud properties are larger than those
computed without them. A larger downward shortwave irra-
diance increase occurs in the tropics, while a larger downward
longwave irradiance increase occurs in polar regions. The
seasonal variation of the difference is small, except in polar
regions. The downward longwave irradiance difference in the
Arctic and Antarctic increases in their respective winter sea-
sons (Figure 4) because the active sensors can detect clouds
better during polar night (section 6.1). While these results
suggest that the CALIOP and CPR cloud properties increase
both downward shortwave and longwave irradiances at the
surface (for the reason explained in section 6.2), the differ-
ences are computed only using instantaneous irradiances for
the nadir CERES footprint. In the following sections, we
address sampling issues of the CALIOP and CPR ground
track.
3.3. Ground Track (1 km Width) Versus Full Footprint
Coverage (20 km)
[21] To check how the cloud properties over the ground
track (∼1 km width) represent the entire CERES footprint
(20 km), we compare the cloud fraction defined over the
ground track within a CERES footprint and that defined over
the entire CERES footprint. Even though the CALIOP and
CPR miss clouds present outside their ground track within a
CERES footprint, we do not expect any systematic bias,
because clouds along the ground track should be a random,
unbiased sample of clouds across the footprint. The issue is,
therefore, how many footprints are necessary for the ground
track sampling error to become negligible to represent the
entire footprint. Figure 5 shows the zonal mean cloud fraction
root mean square (RMS) difference computed with three
different averaging processes. It indicates that the cloud
fractions over the CALIPSO‐CloudSat ground track and over
the CERES footprint are almost identical when computed

Figure 3. Monthly zonal mean shortwave and longwave downward surface irradiance difference. The dif-
ference is defined as the irradiance computed with MODIS‐derived cloud properties minus the irradiance
computed with CALIOP‐, CPR‐, and MODIS‐derived cloud properties. Green, red, magenta, and blue lines
are for January, April, July, and October 2008, respectively. Shortwave irradiance is the daytime average of
instantaneous irradiances, and the longwave irradiance is the day and nighttime average of instantaneous
irradiances.

6 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 4. Monthly mean surface longwave downward irradiance difference gridded in 1° latitude by
30° longitude grids. The difference is defined as the irradiance computed with MODIS only minus the
irradiance computed with CALIOP and CPR.

with one day of footprints averaged over a 1° latitudinal
zone; the RMS difference is less than 0.01 for most latitudes
(green line in Figure 5).
3.4. Nadir Footprint (20 km) Versus Full Swath
(∼2000 km)
[22] CERES footprints containing the ground track of
CALIOP and CPR cover a small fraction of the globe every
day. With a 16‐day repeat cycle [e.g., Stephens et al., 2002],
the longitudinal width of a grid box needs to be at least
30 degrees to have daily samples. Hence, we assess in this
section whether or not the nadir‐view‐only sampling is ade-
quate to provide an unbiased zonal or global monthly mean
irradiance compared with the value derived from full‐swath
sampling. Modeled instantaneous irradiances included in
the CRS product use only the Ed2 MODIS‐derived clouds
and aerosol properties, but cover almost the entire globe
daily. We can, therefore, estimate the zonal TOA and surface
downward irradiance biases by subsetting to obtain near‐
nadir view irradiances and then comparing them with full‐
swath irradiances.
[23] Figure 6 shows the difference of the zonal TOA
reflected shortwave (Figure 6, top) and longwave (Figure 6,
middle) irradiances computed with nadir‐view‐only CERES
footprints and with all footprints. The nadir view is defined
as the viewing zenith angle of the CERES instrument less
than or equal to 5 degrees. Note that the CERES instrument
viewing zenith angle containing the CALIOP and CPR
ground track is not exactly nadir because CALIPSO and
CloudSat fly about 200 km to the east of the Aqua ground
track at the equator to avoid sun glint [Kittaka et al., 2011].
We, however, ignore the effect of this shift on this sampling
study.
[24] TOA irradiances are derived from CERES radiances
by angular distribution models [Loeb et al., 2005]. Note that
CERES angular distribution models minimize viewing angle
dependent errors [e.g., Loeb et al., 2007, Figure 12] by
accounting for the radiance anisotropy of many scene types.
A larger reflected shortwave irradiance difference toward
the poles is a result of full‐swath footprints reaching regions
poleward of the limit reached from nadir. A small difference
of zonal monthly mean TOA irradiances for all latitudes
indicates that nadir‐view sampling is adequate in computing
monthly zonal mean irradiances when CERES angular dis-
tribution models are used. Figure 6 (bottom) shows the zonal
cloud fraction difference between nadir‐view‐only and full‐
swath footprints. The difference occurs because cloud sides
observed from oblique views increase the cloud area pro-
jected along the line‐of‐sight of the instrument [e.g., Minnis,
1989], optical thickness along the line‐of‐sight increases

7 of 21

D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES
Figure 5. Cloud fraction root mean square (RMS) differ-
ence computed with MODIS‐retrieved clouds by the B1
algorithm over the CALIPSO and CloudSat ground track
within a CERES footprint and over the whole CERES foot-
print. Top (red) line is RMS difference of the instantaneous
cloud fraction over a CERES footprint computed for a
month; middle (blue) line is the mean RMS difference of
1° latitude by 30° longitude daily mean cloud fractions (i.e.,
RMS of 30 daily means, which are an average of approxi-
mately 12 footprints); and bottom (green) line is the mean
RMS difference of daily 1° zonal mean cloud fractions (i.e.,
RMS of 30 zonal means, which are an average of approxi-
mately 120 footprints). One month of data from July 2008
was used for the plot.
with viewing angle (clouds are more likely to be detected
[Maddux et al., 2010]), and the pixel size increases with
viewing angle (more likely to have clouds in a pixel
[Ackerman et al., 2008]).
[25] Similar to the TOA irradiance, the bias in the modeled
surface downward irradiance (Figure 7, bottom) caused by
the nadir‐view‐only sampling is small with a global mean
bias of 1.0 W m−2 (out of 202.8 W m−2) for shortwave and
−0.5 W m−2 (out of 342.1 W m−2) for longwave irradiances.
The difference can be explained by the bias of the cloud
fraction derived by the Ed2 cloud algorithm. Therefore, we
conclude that, for the modeled surface downward shortwave
and longwave irradiances, the bias error caused by nadir‐
view sampling is negligible when cloud properties derived
from CALIOP and CPR are used.
3.5. Global Mean Irradiance Estimate
[26] The two sets of surface irradiances, CCCM_CC and
CCCM_MODISonly, provide the effect of CALIOP and
CPR cloud properties on instantaneous irradiance. In the
CERES AVG data product, the diurnal cycle of irradiances
is taken into account by combining MODIS and 3‐hourly
geostationary satellite‐derived cloud properties together. To
convert the mean of instantaneous surface downward long-
wave irradiances computed with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived
cloud properties to an annual global mean irradiance, we
compute the ratio of global mean instantaneous irradiance
computed with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties
8 of 21
21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209
I CC to the irradiance computed with B1 MODIS‐derived
cloud properties only I M and scale the global annual mean
radiance from AVG hIAVG i by
I CC
hIC3M i ¼ hIAVG i : ð1Þ
IM
[27] The angle brackets indicate the mean irradiance
over the complete diurnal cycles. This scaling leads to
345.4 W m−2 for hIC3M i compared with 342.0 W m−2 for
hIAVG i, which is the annual mean surface downward long-
wave irradiance from the AVG product from January 2001
through December 2004. Note that using the annual mean
from January 2001 through December 2004 for hIAVG i and
from 2008 for I CC and I M has no significant impact on the
estimate (Table 3), because the interannual variability of
global mean TOA irradiance is small [Kato, 2009], and the
maximum and minimum values of 4 years of the annual mean
surface downward longwave irradiance from AVG is 342.6
and 341.1 W m−2, respectively. Therefore, the global annual
mean surface downward longwave irradiance is increased by
3.6 W m−2 because of a better cloud mask and vertical profile
of clouds by the active sensors.
[28] The global mean surface downward longwave irradi-
ance estimated by Zhang et al. [2004] from the International
Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP [Rossow and
Schiffer, 1991]) is 345 W m−2. This estimate accounts for
overlapping clouds with the use of climatological cloud
vertical profiles [Wang et al., 2000]. The exact value of the
surface downward longwave irradiance increase depends
on the cloud base height estimated from passive sensors.
According to Zhang et al. [2004], the increase in surface
downward longwave irradiance due to overlapping clouds is
1.83 W m−2.
[29] Other surface irradiance components are also com-
puted by scaling the irradiance from AVG. Table 2 sum-
marizes the global annual mean surface irradiance estimates.
4. Uncertainty in Inputs Used for Surface
Downward Longwave Irradiance Computations
[30] All four modeled irradiance sets share some inputs
such as temperature and humidity profiles. Errors in these
profiles affect modeled surface irradiances but do not affect
the irradiance differences discussed in section 3. In addition,
even though CALIOP and CPR provide better cloud prop-
erties, cloud profiles derived from them contain uncertainties.
For example, screening precipitation to identify the cloud
base height is difficult. Understanding the error in inputs used
for the irradiance computations is needed in order to deter-
mine the uncertainties in surface radiation budget.
4.1. Surface Skin Temperature and Near‐Surface
Air Temperature
[31] The surface skin temperature does not affect the sur-
face downward longwave irradiance. However, a study by
Zhang et al. [2007] indicates that, except for polar regions,
the surface air temperature is within 3 K of the skin temper-
ature despite much larger changes during the diurnal cycle
[e.g., Minnis and Harrison, 1984]. Investigating the error
in the surface skin temperature, therefore, provides an upper
bound on the uncertainty in air temperature near the surface.
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 6. Annual zonal mean TOA reflected (top) shortwave, (middle) longwave, and (bottom) cloud
fraction difference. The difference is defined as the nadir‐only mean minus the full‐swath mean (solid
line). One year of data from 2002 is used. The shading indicates the maximum and minimum monthly
mean difference within a 1° latitudinal zone. Shortwave irradiances are converted to the daily mean value
using the method discussed by Kato et al. [2008].

[32] The surface skin temperature retrieved by all cloud
algorithms used in this study is derived from the 11 mm
MODIS channel. Its uncertainty is caused by cloud con-
tamination and uncertainties in surface emissivity, atmo-
spheric humidity, and temperature profiles. When CALIOP
and CPR are used to identify clear pixels, therefore, cloud
contamination is nearly eliminated. A comparison by Zhang
et al. [2006] indicates that the surface emissivities from two
databases (ISCCP‐FD and Wilber et al. [1999]) agree well
over oceans and agree to within ±3% over land. Therefore,
the uncertainty in the retrieved skin temperature over oceans
is predominately caused by uncertainties in temperature and
humidity profiles.
[33] Temperature and humidity profiles used in irradiance
computations for this study are either from GEOS‐5
(CCCM_CC, CCCM_MODISonly, and CRS) or GEOS‐4
(AVG). To estimate the bias error in the GEOS‐derived
near‐surface air temperature, we compare the skin temper-
ature derived from MODIS and GEOS‐5. This comparison
is only valid for clear skies when a radiance‐based skin
temperature retrieval is possible. We therefore subset the
GEOS‐5 skin temperature using the clear‐sky scene iden-

9 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 7. Annual mean surface downward (top) shortwave and (bottom) longwave irradiance differences.
The difference is defined as the mean irradiance computed for nadir‐view‐only instantaneous CERES foot-
prints minus the mean irradiance computed for full‐swath CERES footprints. Shortwave irradiances are
converted to the daily mean value using the method discussed by Kato et al. [2008]. Four seasonal
months, January, April, July, and October 2008, are used to compute the annual mean value.

tified by CALIOP and CPR. Figure 8 shows the monthly [35] We estimate the uncertainty in the surface down-
zonal mean difference of skin temperature over land and ward longwave irradiance caused by the uncertainty in
ocean for four seasonal months. The global and annual mean near‐surface air temperature and coarse 3‐hourly interpo-
difference is 0.63 K (GEOS‐5 – MODIS‐retrieved), and the lation separately. We use 0.96 K as the uncertainty in the
differences over ocean and land are 0.96 K and −0.79 K, skin temperature and assume that the uncertainty of near‐
respectively. surface air temperature is the same as the skin temperature
[34] The skin temperature retrieved from MODIS is the uncertainty. When the temperature of tropical, midlatitude
temperature at the overpass time (1:30 at the equator) and may summer, and subarctic winter standard atmospheres below
not represent the mean skin temperature of the hour and grid 800 hPa is reduced 0.96 K, the downward longwave
boxes, especially over land where the spatial and temporal irradiance decreases 4.3, 3.8, and 2.4 W m−2 for clear‐sky
variability is larger than that over oceans. In the irradiance and 5.4, 5.1, and 4.5 W m−2, respectively, for overcast
computations, skin temperature was interpolated from the conditions where a liquid‐water cloud with an optical
3‐hourly from GEOS‐5 reanalyses, which originally had a
1 h temporal resolution. Because of this coarse temporal Table 2. Global Annual Mean Surface Irradiance Estimate
interpolation, the daily maximum and minimum temperatures
With CALIOP
were missed in some locations especially over land. There- and MODIS
fore, spatial and temporal sampling by MODIS, temporal CPR Cloudsa Onlya AVGb Scaled
resolution used to interpolate GEOS‐5 skin temperature, −2
Longwave down (W m ) 348.1 344.7 342.0 345.4
MODIS retrieval error, and the GEOS‐5 skin temperature Longwave up (W m−2) 401.2 401.1 398.0 398.1
error cause the difference shown in Figure 8. Among these, Shortwave downc (W m−2) 274.5 270.2 188.9 191.9
the error due to MODIS sampling and retrieval errors does Shortwave upc (W m−2) 27.0 27.3 23.1 22.8
not affect the irradiance computations. We consider, there- a
Average of instantaneous irradiance.
fore, the difference shown in Figure 8 as the upper limit of b
Average of irradiances including diurnal cycle.
the uncertainty in the skin temperature. c
Solar constant = 1365 W m−2.

10 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 8. Zonal monthly mean surface skin temperature differences over ocean and land. The difference
is defined as the surface skin temperature used in irradiance computations, based on GEOS5, minus the
skin temperature retrieved by the CERES cloud algorithm from MODIS radiances for pixels identified as
clear by CALIOP and CPR. GEOS5 skin temperature is collocated with CALIOP and CPR ground track
and clear‐sky values are sampled. Zonal differences are averaged with a 5° moving window.

thickness of 10 is placed between 550 hPa and 850 hPa.
Therefore, the uncertainty in the surface downward long-
wave irradiance caused by near‐surface air temperature is
approximately 4.5 W m−2 (an area‐weighted average of the
mean of clear and overcast values). Zhang et al. [1995]
perturbed the lowest level of air temperature of 15 July
1985 atmosphere by 2 K and found that global surface
downward longwave irradiance increases by 23 W m−2. In
a revised estimate, Zhang et al. [2007] reported that an
uncertainty in surface air temperature of 2.6 K resulted in
an uncertainty in the surface downward longwave irradiance
of 15 W m−2. Our uncertainty in downward longwave
irradiance due to uncertainty in near‐surface air temperature
is smaller than estimates by Zhang et al. [1995, 2007]. This
is because the near‐surface air temperature uncertainty in the
Zhang et al. results is derived from comparison of several
reanalysis data sets and is larger than the uncertainty we find
from direct comparison of GEOS‐5 with retrieved values.
Thus, we use the near‐surface air temperature uncertainty of
0.96 K and corresponding downward longwave irradiance
uncertainty of 4.5 W m−2.
[36] To estimate the bias errors caused by a 3‐hourly skin
temperature resolution, we compute a global mean downward
longwave irradiance using a higher temporal resolution.
When a 1‐hourly temporal resolution is used for the com-
putation of global mean irradiance for a 1 July 2008 atmo-
sphere, the surface downward longwave irradiance increases
by 2.6 W m−2 (from 357.7 W m−2). Although of opposite
sign, a study by Zhang et al. [2004] indicates a similar sen-
sitivity. In their study, including the cycle of surface tem-
perature reduced the daily global mean surface downward
longwave irradiance by 1.85 W m−2.
4.2. Cloud Base Height and Other Uncertainties
[37] A large uncertainty associated with the cloud base
height derived from radar results from the difficulty in
screening precipitation [e.g., Clothiaux et al., 2000]. To
estimate the uncertainty in cloud base height derived from
CALIOP and CPR, we compute the monthly zonal mean
cloud base heights of nonprecipitating clouds (Figure 9,
right). We use the precipitation flag from the CloudSat
CLDCLASS product [Sassen and Wang, 2008] and average
cloud profiles with the flag equal to 0 (nonprecipitating
clouds). The global mean cloud base height difference
between all clouds and nonprecipitating clouds is 0.5 km,
where nonprecipitating clouds have a higher cloud base. The
global mean difference of the cloud base estimated from
CALIOP and CPR and from MODIS is 1.6 km. Therefore,
the cloud base of nonprecipitating clouds is lower by 1.1 km
than the cloud base estimated from MODIS cloud top
heights with the empirical relationship [Minnis et al., 2011].
We estimate that the uncertainty in the cloud base height
difference computed with and without CALIOP and CPR
cloud properties is 30% (∼0.5/1.6). If we assume that the
downward longwave irradiance changes linearly with cloud
base height, a 30% uncertainty in the cloud base height
corresponds to 1.1 W m−2 (0.3 times 3.6 W m−2 from
section 3.5).
[38] The uncertainty in the column water vapor of 15% is
according to Zhang et al. [2007]. We use the midlatitude
summer water vapor profile and perturb the column water
vapor amount by ±15% with clear and overcast conditions.
The overcast cloud extends from 850 to 550 hPa and the
optical thickness is 10. When clear and cloudy conditions
are averaged, a ±15% column water vapor amount pertur-

11 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 9. Zonal monthly mean cloud base height difference. The difference is defined as the (left) cloud
base derived from MODIS minus the cloud base derived from CALIOP and CPR. (right) The cloud base
height of nonprecipitating clouds minus the cloud base height of all clouds; both are derived from CALIOP
and CPR. Zonal differences are averaged with a 5° moving window.

bation changes the surface downward longwave irradiance
by 5.2 W m−2. L’Ecuyer and Stephens [2003], who per-
turbed water valor profiles in the tropics and subtropics,
show similar surface downward longwave irradiance sensi-
tivity to the water vapor amount.
[39] Table 3 summarizes the uncertainties in skin tem-
perature, cloud base height, and other inputs, as well as the
uncertainty in the modeled surface downward longwave
irradiance. When we sum the bias errors and uncertainties
listed in Table 3 assuming all uncertainties are indepen-
dent, the bias error in the modeled global annual mean
surface downward longwave irradiance of 345.4 W m−2 is
−1.5 W m−2 with the uncertainty (1s) of 6.9 W m−2.
5. Comparison With Surface Observations
[40] To check if an increase of surface downward longwave
irradiance computed with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud
profiles is indeed an improvement, we compare instantaneous
modeled irradiances with surface observations. Figure 10
shows the histogram of the modeled and observed surface
downward longwave irradiance difference over three Arctic
sites. To reduce sampling noise, modeled irradiances for all
CERES footprints that fall within 150 km from the site in a
day are averaged. The averaged irradiance is differenced with
the mean surface observation taken within ±15 min of the
overpass time. Even with this averaging process, sampling
noise dominates, apparent from the wide range of differences.
While the 3‐year average of daytime difference with and
without CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties are
−1.3 W m−2 and −2.3 W m−2, respectively, large negative
differences are absent in the nighttime histogram when
CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties are used. As a
result, the annual mean difference improves from −13.6 W m−2
without CALIOP and CPR cloud properties to −2.9 W m−2
with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties for
nighttime.
6. Discussion
[41] In section 5, we showed that the TOA reflected
shortwave irradiance decreases and longwave irradiance
increases when CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived aerosol and cloud
properties are used in the irradiance computations. As a result,
irradiances computed with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived prop-
erties agree better with CERES observations at TOA. At the
surface, both the downward shortwave and longwave irra-
diances increase when CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived proper-
ties are used. The change is caused by the differences in
cloud properties used in the computations. In this section, we

Table 3. Surface Downward Longwave Uncertainty

LW Irradiance LW Irradiance
Uncertainty With Known Uncertainty With Unknown
Variables Global Mean Uncertainty Sign (W m−2) Sign (W m−2) Reference
Near‐surface temperature derived 288.6 ± 0.96 K ±4.5
from skin temperature
Temperature and humidity 3 hourly to 1 hourly −2.6
temporal interpolation
Cloud base height 2.9–0.5 km 1.1
Precipitable water 15% ±5.2 Zhang et al. [2006]
Interannual variability from Jan. 2001 through Dec. 2004 ±0.8
Sampling Nadir versus full swath negligible
Overall uncertainty −1.5 ±6.9

12 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 10. Difference (modeled – observed) between modeled and observed surface downward long-
wave irradiance in the Arctic. Observed irradiances were taken at three sites (Ny Alesund Norway
78.93°N 11.95°E, Barrow Alaska 71.32°N 156.61°W, and Alert Canada 82.51°N 62.35°W). Modeled
irradiances for CERES footprints that fall within 150 km from the surface sites in a day were averaged and
compared with observations averaged over 15 min at satellite overpass time. Three years of data from July
2006 through June 2009 were used. Both modeled irradiances with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud prop-
erties (labeled CCCM) and without them (labeled MODIS only) are nadir view only.

analyze how the surface downward longwave irradiance
increases when using CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud
properties compared with that computed with MODIS B1
cloud properties.
6.1. Surface Downward Longwave Irradiance
[42] The merged CALIOP and CPR cloud profiles improve
the surface downward longwave irradiance by providing better
cloud detection and cloud base heights. To understand how
the cloud fraction and base height improvements influence
the surface downward longwave irradiance, Figure 11 (right)
shows the zonal difference of the cloud fraction derived from
MODIS and from CALIOP and CPR. The global mean cloud
fraction given by CALIOP and CPR is 0.761, which is 0.114
larger than the cloud fraction derived by the B1 cloud algo-
rithm. Although the cloud fraction given by the B1 cloud
algorithm for this comparison is derived from the nadir view
only, the difference is larger than cloud fraction difference
derived from the nadir view and full swath shown in Figure 6.
The CERES Ed2 cloud mask typically misses clouds with
optical thickness less than 0.3 [Minnis et al., 2008a, 2008b]
and these optically thin clouds contribute a significant part of
the cloud fraction derived from CALIOP and CPR (Figure 11,
left). When the extinction coefficient derived by CALIOP is
integrated and clouds having optical thickness less than 0.3
are neglected, the cloud fraction derived by the B1 cloud
algorithm agrees with the cloud fraction derived from
CALIOP and CPR to within 0.038. When the difference of
cloud fraction retrieved from nadir and full swath is con-
sidered, the cloud fraction difference is further reduced to
−0.004.
[43] The cloud base height difference depends on the
empirical relationship used to estimate the cloud base height
from the MODIS‐derived cloud top height. Because the B1
cloud algorithm treats each cloud retrieval as if it were for a
single‐layer cloud, the cloud thickness algorithm used to
retrieve the cloud base is applied to the uppermost cloud. The
lower‐level cloud and its base are missed. Thus, the higher
cloud base altitude derived from the MODIS data is pre-
dominately caused by missing the lower‐level clouds in
multilayer cloud systems.
[44] While the surface downward longwave irradiance is
sensitive to both cloud fraction and cloud base, Figure 12
indicates that the lower cloud base contributes slightly
more to the improvement in the Arctic in July. In Figure 12,
the surface downward longwave irradiance difference com-

13 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 11. (left) Annual (2008) zonal mean cloud fraction derived from merged CALIOP and CPR
cloud profiles. The dashed and solid lines are all clouds and clouds with the optical thickness greater than
0.3, respectively. (right) Annual zonal mean cloud fraction difference. The difference is defined as the
cloud fraction derived from MODIS minus the cloud fraction derived from CALIOP and CPR. The
dashed and solid blue lines are for the difference including all CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived clouds and
clouds with an optical thickness greater than 0.3. The solid red line indicates the difference computed with
the MODIS‐derived clouds using full swath minus CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived clouds, excluding clouds
with cloud optical thickness less than 0.3.

puted with and without CALIOP and CPR cloud properties
are sorted by the differences in cloud base height and fraction
derived from CALIOP and CPR and by the B1 cloud algo-
rithm. The sensitivity of the surface downward longwave
irradiance to cloud base height in July is larger than the
sensitivity in January, which is indicated by more vertical
contour lines in the right plot. In addition, CALIOP and CPR
detect clouds that are missed by the B1 cloud algorithm
during polar night in January, which is apparent in the lower
left plot of Figure 12 showing a 2D histogram of the number
of samples. A large improvement of cloud detection by
CALIOP and CPR contributes mostly to increasing the sur-
face downward longwave irradiance in fall and winter in the
Arctic, apparent in Figure 13, which shows regional and
monthly mean differences. In other regions, both a larger
cloud fraction and lower cloud base height derived from
CALIOP and CPR compared with the cloud fraction and base
height derived by the B1 cloud algorithm contribute to a
greater surface downward longwave irradiance (Figure 13).
6.2. Surface Downward Shortwave and TOA
Irradiances
[45] A larger cloud fraction derived from CALIOP and
CPR compared with the cloud fraction derived from MODIS
does not explain the larger downward shortwave irradiance
at the surface, smaller TOA reflected shortwave and larger
TOA longwave irradiances shown in Figures 2 and 3. To
understand the reason for the change qualitatively, Figure 14
shows the differences in the four irradiance components as a
function of the cloud top pressure of a single‐layer cloud.
The four components are TOA reflected shortwave (solid
red line with closed circle), TOA longwave (solid blue line
with closed circle), surface downward shortwave irradiance
(dashed red line with closed square), and surface downward
longwave irradiance (dashed blue line with closed square).
The difference is defined as the modeled irradiance with a
single‐layer overcast cloud minus the modeled irradiance
with two vertically overlapping cloud layers. Both layers of
the two‐layer cloud are overcast. The upper‐ and lower‐
layer cloud tops are 200 and 850 hPa on the two left plots
and 550 and 850 hPa on the two right plots, respectively.
The upper layer is an ice cloud with the optical thickness of
0.1 and the effective diameter of 60 mm. The lower layer is a
liquid‐water cloud with the optical thickness of 5 and the
effective radius of 10 mm. The single‐layer cloud in the top
two plots is a water cloud with the effective radius of 15 mm,
and in the bottom two plots it is an ice cloud with the
effective diameter of 100 mm. The optical thickness of the
single‐layer water cloud is 5.3 and of the single‐layer ice
cloud is 3.7. The optical thickness of the single‐layer cloud
is determined by matching the 0.55 mm albedo of the two‐
layer cloud at TOA, which crudely simulates the optical
thickness retrieval from visible reflectance and maintains a
constant scaled optical thickness between two cloud systems.
[46] Figure 14 indicates that when two‐layer overlapping
clouds are present, the TOA shortwave irradiance is larger
and the other three components are lower, if the irradiance is
computed with a single‐layer cloud that gives the same
TOA albedo at 0.55 mm as the two‐layer overlapping clouds
and the cloud top located between two overlapping layers.
Note that the sign of the surface downward shortwave
irradiance difference is sensitive to the retrieved particle size
of the single‐layer cloud. For example, when the ice effec-
tive diameter of the single‐layer cloud is reduced to 60 mm

14 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 12. (top) Surface downward longwave irradiance difference defined as the irradiance computed
with MODIS‐derived cloud properties only minus that computed with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud
properties for the months of (left) January and (right) July. The irradiance difference is sorted by the cloud
base height and cloud fraction differences between those derived from MODIS and from CALIOP and
CPR. The difference is defined as MODIS minus CALIOP and CPR‐derived cloud properties. (bottom)
Same as Figure 12 (top), but the logarithm (base 10) of the number of samples is plotted.

or smaller from 100 mm shown in the bottom two plots in
Figure 14, the surface downward shortwave irradiance com-
puted with the single‐layer cloud is larger than the irradiance
computed with the two‐layer overlapping clouds. This result
indicates, therefore, that a possible reason for the lower TOA
reflected shortwave irradiance and higher TOA longwave,
surface downward shortwave and longwave irradiances when
using the CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties is, in
the presence of multilayer clouds with optically thin ice
clouds vertically overlapping with low‐level water clouds, the
B1 algorithm retrieves single‐layer clouds of which the cloud
top height is lower than the true upper‐layer cloud top height.
6.3. Cloud Property Retrieval Improvement
[47] In this study, two sets of cloud properties were
retrieved from MODIS radiances over the CALIPSO and
CloudSat ground track. The first set was produced by the B1
cloud algorithm without the use of CALIOP‐ and CPR‐
derived properties. The second set was produced by the

15 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 13. Monthly mean cloud fraction, cloud base height, and surface downward longwave irradiance
difference as a function of month for four regions. The difference is computed as MODIS‐derived minus
CALIOP CPR‐derived values. Four regions are, from left to right, 60°S to 30°S, 30°S to 30°N, 30°N to
60°N, and 60°N to 82°N. Blue and red bars in the cloud fraction difference plot are computed with all clouds
and clouds having optical thickness greater than 0.3, respectively. Blue and red bars in the cloud base height
difference plot are computed with all clouds and non‐precipitating clouds, respectively. MODIS‐derived
cloud fraction and cloud base height are unaltered in computing the difference shown by blue and red bars.
Note that the y‐axis of the middle plot changes from positive to negative.

enhanced cloud algorithm, which used the B1 algorithm
constrained by the uppermost cloud effective height (and
mask) derived from CALIOP and CPR when a single‐layer
cloud is present (i.e., two algorithms are the same when
multilayer clouds are present). Forcing the algorithm to
retrieve the cloud at the height detected by CALIOP and
CPR eliminates the error in cloud detection and cloud top
height and improves cloud property retrievals [e.g., Cooper
et al., 2003]. While the difference between these two sets of
cloud properties is not indicative of the error caused by
assumptions in the algorithm, cloud properties derived from
the enhanced algorithm are consistent with accurate cloud
mask and top height derived from the active sensors. The
differences in cloud properties, therefore, can be considered

16 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Figure 14. TOA reflected shortwave (solid red line), longwave (solid blue line), surface downward
shortwave (dashed red line), and surface longwave downward (dashed blue line) irradiance differences
as a function of single‐layer cloud top pressure. The difference is defined as the irradiance computed with
a single‐layer cloud minus the irradiance computed with two‐layer cloud. Cloud top pressures of the two‐
layer cloud are (right) 200 and 850 hPa and (left) 550 and 850 hPa, indicated by the vertical dotted lines
with a depth of 50 hPa. The upper layer is an ice cloud with optical thickness of 0.1 and effective diam-
eter of 60 mm. The lower layer is a liquid‐water cloud with optical thickness of 5.0 and effective radius of
10 mm. The depth of both upper and lower layers is 50 hPa. The single‐layer cloud in the top two plots
is a liquid‐water cloud with effective radius of 15 mm and, in the bottom two plots, the single‐layer
cloud is an ice cloud with effective diameter of 100 mm. The single‐layer cloud optical thickness is
(top) 5.3 for the water cloud and (bottom) 3.7 for the ice cloud both with a depth of 100 hPa. The cosine
of the solar zenith angle is 0.8. The tropical standard atmosphere and an ocean surface are used for the
computations.

as uncertainties in the cloud properties derived from the B1
cloud algorithm due to the limitation of detecting clouds and
in determining cloud top height. The differences in cloud
properties derived by the enhanced and B1 algorithms are
summarized in Table 4.
6.4. Implication for Hydrological Cycles
[48] As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the
global surface radiation budget needs to balance against
other surface energy fluxes. Therefore, we briefly discuss
the effect of the net surface irradiance increase suggested by

17 of 21
 21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES D19209

Table 4. Global Annual Mean Cloud Properties Derived From CALIOP, CPR, and MODIS and Their Differences From Using MODIS
Only
Mean Derived From CALIOP, CPR, MODIS Only Minus (CALIPSO, CPR,
and Enhanced Cloud Algorithm and Enhanced Algorithm)
All Ocean Land All Ocean Land
a
Fraction (all) 0.761 0.783 0.655 −0.114 −0.088 −0.134
Fraction (t > 0.3) 0.685 0.718 0.559 −0.038 −0.022 −0.037
Optical thickness (linear mean)a 7.86 7.71 8.11 0.66 0.39 1.62
Optical thickness (logarithmic mean)a 0.943 0.964 0.835 0.28 0.23 0.48
Top heighta (km) 8.0 7.6 9.3 −2.2 −2.2 −2.0
Base heighta (km) 2.9 2.9 3.0 1.6 1.3 2.6
Phasea,b 1.49 1.45 1.58 −0.04 −0.04 −0.06
Water cloud effective radiusa,c (mm) 14.0 14.5 12.0 −0.89 −0.99 −0.55
Ice cloud effective diametera,c (mm) 53.5 55.7 47.1 5.56 4.98 7.20
a
Includes all clouds.
b
1 = water clouds, 2 = ice clouds.
c
Derived from 3.7 mm channel.

the result of this study and how this relates to the uncertainty point out why error estimates in precipitation estimated from
of surface fluxes estimated in earlier studies. passive sensors have been so elusive in the past. If we assume
[49] The standard deviation of annual global mean pre- the uncertainty of the precipitation estimate is 10%, and both
cipitation derived from Global Precipitation Climatology the surface downward longwave irradiance and precipitation
Project (GPCP) and Climate Prediction Center Merged uncertainties are 1s, this study indicates that 2s surface
Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP) data from 1988 through energy flux uncertainties estimated from the surface down-
1999 is about 1% [Schlosser and Houser, 2007]. The dif- ward longwave irradiance and latent heat flux uncertainties
ference of annual global mean precipitation based on GPCP overlap (Figure 15).
and CMAP is approximately 10% [Schlosser and Houser, [51] In this study, however, we did not estimate the
2007]. Trenberth et al. [2009] suggest an underestimate of uncertainty in upward longwave and upward and downward
precipitation over land by 17.9%, which is equivalent to an shortwave irradiances. In addition, we relied on geostationary
approximately 5% global underestimate, due primarily to satellite‐derived cloud properties to account for a diurnal
gauge undercatch and interpolation in areas with steep and cycle of irradiances (AVG). Although the process to account
complex topography. Inconsistency among the surface energy for the diurnal cycle minimizes the geostationary satellite
fluxes, precipitation, and divergence is 15 W m−2 over ocean calibration effects to the irradiance computation [Young et al.,
[Edwards, 2007] and among the surface energy fluxes and
precipitation is 9 to 20 W m−2 over land and ocean [Lin et al.,
2008], where the positive sign indicates more energy depos-
ited to the surface. Therefore, earlier studies indicate that a
smaller net irradiance at the surface is needed to close the
inconsistency.
[50] We show that including CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived
cloud profiles increases the global annual mean surface
downward longwave irradiance to 346.9 W m−2 (345.4 +
1.5 W m−2). Although the uncertainty due to the diurnal
cycle of the shortwave irradiance was not considered, a
larger downward surface shortwave irradiance computed
with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived properties adds to the
positive net flux at the surface. Once other surface irradiance
components from Table 2 are combined, the surface net
irradiance is 116.4 W m−2 (including the surface downward
longwave irradiance bias error of 1.5 W m−2). When we use
the sensible heat flux of 17 W m−2 [Trenberth et al., 2009],
and the surface latent heat flux of 75.5 W m−2, the value
computed from the annual mean global value of 2.61 mm Figure 15. Global annual mean surface net irradiance on the
day−1 [Adler et al., 2003], the sum of the latent and sensible left (labeled 1) and latent heat flux estimated from the Global
heat fluxes is 92.5 W m−2. Stephens and Kummerow [2007] Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) [Adler et al.,
listed three sources of uncertainty in retrieving precipitation 2003] plus surface sensible heat flux (17 W m−2) [Trenberth
from microwave measurements from space; distinguishing et al., 2009] on the right (labeled 2). Open circles indicate
precipitating cloudy scenes from nonprecipitating scenes, mean values, while boxes indicate 1s uncertainty and vertical
atmospheric model used in forward calculations, and micro- lines extend 2s uncertainty. Only the (left) surface downward
physical approximations used in forward calculations. Because longwave irradiance uncertainty and (right) latent heat
the effects of these on the precipitation error are complex, they uncertainty are included in the uncertainty estimate.

18 of 21

D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES
1998], and diurnal cycle correction alters the global annual
mean TOA irradiance very little [Loeb et al., 2005], the
uncertainty due to geostationary satellite‐derived cloud prop-
erties needs to be estimated, especially for the surface down-
ward shortwave irradiance. A more rigorous closure study
among the surface net irradiance, surface sensible, and latent
heat fluxes is currently taking place within the NASA Energy
Water Cycle Study (NEWS) project.
7. Conclusions
[52] Improvements in modeled TOA and surface irradiances
using CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud and aerosol properties
from those computed with MODIS only are investigated.
When one year of TOA instantaneous irradiances computed
with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived properties are averaged
globally, the shortwave irradiance decreases by 12.5 W m−2
(5.0%) and the longwave irradiance increases by 2.5 W m−2
(1.1%). As a consequence, both the shortwave and longwave
irradiances computed with CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived prop-
erties agree better with CERES‐derived irradiances to within
0.5 W m−2 (out of 237.8 W m−2 CERES value) for shortwave
and 2.6 W m−2 (out of 240.1 W m−2 CERES value) for
longwave irradiances. The difference of monthly zonal mean
irradiance is larger in some latitudes, however, and a good
agreement with CERES‐derived irradiance is, in part, achieved
by compensating errors. The global annual mean of instanta-
neous surface downward longwave irradiances increases by
3.4 W m−2 (1.0%) because of a larger cloud fraction and lower
cloud base height derived from CALIOP and CPR compared
with those derived from the B1 cloud algorithm that uses only
MODIS‐derived properties. In addition, the global mean
of instantaneous surface downward shortwave irradiances
increases by 8.6 W m−2 (1.6%). Therefore, the global annual
mean net surface irradiance increases when the CALIOP‐ and
CPR‐derived properties are used in the irradiance computa-
tions. The largest improvement of the surface downward
longwave irradiance is in the Arctic during fall and winter
because of better cloud detection provided by CALIOP and
CPR. The estimated global annual mean downward long-
wave irradiance is 345.4 + 1.5 ± 6.9 W m−2. The estimated
uncertainty in the surface downward longwave irradiance
caused by the cloud base height because of precipitation is
1.1 W m−2. As pointed out by Zhang et al. [2007], the
uncertainty is primarily caused by the near‐surface air tem-
perature and column water vapor amount uncertainties. A
further study needed to estimate the surface radiation budget
more accurately is a rigorous treatment of the diurnal cycle
in the modeled shortwave irradiance computed with the
CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud properties.
Appendix A: CALIOP, CPR, and MODIS
Derived Cloud Properties and Flux
Computations With Them
[53] The hierarchy of cloud optical thickness and extinction
coefficient vertical profile sources for irradiance computa-
tions follow. When the CALIOP‐derived extinction coeffi-
cient (532 nm) for the cloud layer is available within the
CERES footprint with the extinction QC flag of 0, 1, 2, 16,
or 18 and with the CAD score ranging from −100 to 100,
the CALIOP‐derived extinction profile is used. When the
19 of 21
21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209
CALIOP‐derived extinction profile is not available within the
CERES footprint, CPR‐derived (2B CWC‐RO, Revision 4)
ice‐water content (IWC) and liquid‐water content (LWC) are
converted to the extinction coefficient profile [Fu and Liou,
1993; Fu et al., 1999]. To minimize the conversion error
when mixed‐phase clouds are present in a column and when
the extinction vertical profile is determined from CALIOP‐ or
CPR‐derived properties, the scaled optical thickness inte-
grated from vertical extinction profile is normalized by the
MODIS‐derived scaled optical thickness by
X
n
M ð1  gM Þ ¼  i Dzi ð1  gi Þ; ðA1Þ
i¼1
where t M and gM are the optical thickness and asymmetry
parameter, respectively, derived from MODIS, bi is the
extinction coefficient in the ith layer, and gi is the cloud
particle asymmetry parameter in the ith layer. In (1), a is a free
parameter to scale the CALIOP‐ or CPR‐derived scaled cloud
optical thickness by MODIS‐derived scaled cloud optical
thickness by the enhanced cloud algorithm. The enhanced
cloud algorithm is the same as the B1 cloud algorithm with
one important difference. The enhanced cloud algorithm uses
CALIOP‐ and CPR‐derived cloud height as a constraint in the
following way.
[54] When a single‐layer cloud is present in the pixel, then
the effective cloud top is placed at a height based on the
following criterion. When the uppermost cloud layer optical
thickness is greater than 0.3 and less than 2, cloud top is
placed at a height equal to one half of the layer cloud optical
thickness. When the layer optical thickness is greater than 2,
the cloud top is placed at a height equal to the optical
thickness of 1 from the cloud top. This adjustment is made
before emission contribution is subtracted from the 3.7 mm
channel.
[55] When CALIOP did not retrieve an extinction coef-
ficient profile and CPR did not retrieve IWC and LWC, then
the MODIS‐derived cloud optical thickness by the enhanced
cloud algorithm is distributed among cloud layers propor-
tional to their geometrical thickness, i.e., the extinction
coefficient is constant within all cloud layers. When both the
enhanced and B1 cloud algorithms did not provide cloud
properties (optical thickness, particle size, and phase) of the
cloud group for various reasons, such as a large solar zenith
angle or the observed reflectance exceeded the range used
for look‐up tables, we neglect the cloud group. We then
increase the cloud fraction of other cloud groups within the
CERES footprint that have retrieved cloud properties so that
the total cloud fraction over the CERES footprint is not
altered. If no MODIS‐retrieved cloud properties are available
within the CERES footprint, we use either CALIOP‐ or CPR‐
derived cloud optical thickness without the normalization of
the scaled optical thickness assuming an effective radius of
10 mm. The frequency of occurrence of cases where all the
enhanced and B1 cloud algorithms and CALIOP‐ and CPR‐
detected clouds have no retrieval is less than 1%.
[56] Acknowledgments. We thank Bing Lin, Tristan L’Ecuyer, and
Stefan Kinne for useful discussions and Amber Richards for proof reading
the manuscript. The work was supported by the NASA Energy Water Cycle
Study (NEWS) project. Also two of the authors (S.K. and P.M.) received
support from the NASA cryosphere IPY program for this study.

D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES
References
Ackerman, S. A., R. E. Holz, R. Frey, E. W. Eloranta, B. C. Maddux,
and M. McGill (2008), Cloud detection with MODIS. Part II: Valida-
tion, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 25, 1073–1086, doi:10.1175/
2007JTECHA1053.1.
Adler, R. F., et al. (2003), The version‐2 global precipitation climatology
project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979‐present), J. Hydro-
meteorol., 4, 1147–1167, doi:10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004<1147:
TVGPCP>2.0.CO;2.
Barker, H. W. (1996), A parameterization for computing grid‐averaged
solar fluxes for inhomogeneous marine boundary layer clouds. Part I:
Methodology and homogeneous biases, J. Atmos. Sci., 53, 2289–2303,
doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053<2289:APFCGA>2.0.CO;2.
Bloom, S., et al. (2005), Documentation and validation of the Goddard
Earth Observing System (GEOS) data assimilation system—Version 4,
in Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation,
vol. 26, Tech. Rep. 104606, NASA, Washington, D. C.
Charlock, T. P., F. G. Rose, D. A. Rutan, Z. Jin, and S. Kato (2006), The
global surface and atmosphere radiation budget: An assessment of
accuracy with 5 years of calculations and observations, paper presented
at 12th Conference on Atmospheric Radiation, NASA, Madison, Wis.,
10–14 July. [Available at http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/cave/.]
Clothiaux, E. E., T. P. Ackerman, G. G. Mace, K. P. Moran, R. T. Marchand,
M. A. Miller, and B. E. Martner (2000), Objective determination of cloud
heights and radar reflectivities using a combination of active remote
sensors at the ARM CART sites, J. Appl. Meteorol., 39, 645–665,
doi:10.1175/1520-0450(2000)039<0645:ODOCHA>2.0.CO;2.
Collins, W. D., P. J. Rasch, B. E. Eaton, B. V. Khattatov, J.‐F. Lamarque,
and C. S. Zender (2001), Simulating aerosols using a chemical transport
model with assimilation of satellite aerosol retrievals: Methodology
for INDOEX, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7313–7336, doi:10.1029/
2000JD900507.
Cooper, S. J., T. S. L’Ecuyer, and G. L. Stephens (2003), The impact of
explicit cloud boundary information on ice cloud microphysical property
retrievals from infrared radiances, J. Geophys. Res., 108(D3), 4107,
doi:10.1029/2002JD002611.
Edwards, J. M. (2007), Oceanic latent heat fluxes: Consistency with the
atmospheric hydrological and energy cycles and general circulation mod-
eling, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06115, doi:10.1029/2006JD007324.
Fu, Q., and K.‐N. Liou (1993), Parameterization of the radiative properties
of cirrus clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 50, 2008–2025, doi:10.1175/1520-0469
(1993)050<2008:POTRPO>2.0.CO;2.
Fu, Q., K. Liou, M. Cribb, T. Charlock, and A. Grossman (1997), On
multiple scattering in thermal infrared radiative transfer, J. Atmos. Sci.,
54, 2799–2812, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<2799:MSPITI>2.0.
CO;2.
Fu, Q., W. B. Sun, and P. Yang (1999), Modeling of scattering and absorp-
tion by nonspherical cirrus ice particles at thermal infrared wavelengths,
J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 2937–2947, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<2937:
MOSAAB>2.0.CO;2.
Hess, M., P. Koepke, and I. Schult (1998), Optical Properties of Aerosols
and Clouds: The software package OPAC, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79,
831–844, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0831:OPOAAC>2.0.CO;2.
Hunt, W. H., D. M. Winker, M. A. Vaughan, K. A. Powell, P. L. Lucker,
and C. Weimer (2009), CALIPSO lidar description and performance
assessment, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 26, 1214–1228, doi:10.1175/
2009JTECHA1223.1.
Im, E., C. Wu, and S. L. Durden (2005), Cloud profiling radar for the
CloudSat mission, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 20, 15–18,
doi:10.1109/MAES.2005.1581095.
Jin, Z., T. P. Charlock, W. L. Smith Jr., and K. Rutledge (2004), A look‐up
table for ocean surface albedo, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L22301,
doi:10.1029/2004GL021180.
Kato, S. (2009), Interannual variability of global radiation budget, J. Clim.,
22, 4893–4907, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2795.1.
Kato, S., T. P. Ackerman, J. H. Mather, and E. E. Clothiaux (1999), The
k‐distribution method and correlated‐k approximation for a shortwave
radiative transfer model, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 62,
109–121, doi:10.1016/S0022-4073(98)00075-2.
Kato, S., F. G. Rose, and T. P. Charlock (2005), Computation of domain‐
averaged irradiance using satellite derived cloud properties, J. Atmos.
Oceanic Technol., 22, 146–164, doi:10.1175/JTECH-1694.1.
Kato, S., F. D. Rose, D. A. Rutan, and T. P. Charlock (2008), Cloud effects
on the meridional atmospheric energy budget estimated from Clouds
and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) data, J. Clim., 21,
4223–4241, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI1982.1.
Kato, S., S. Sun‐Mack, W. F. Miller, F. G. Rose, Y. Chen, P. Minnis, and
B. A. Wielicki (2010), Relationships among cloud occurrence frequency,
20 of 21
21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209
overlap, and effective thickness derived from CALIPSO and CloudSat
merged cloud vertical profiles, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00H28,
doi:10.1029/2009JD012277.
Kittaka, C., D. M. Winker, M. A. Vaughan, A. Omar, and L. A. Remer
(2011), Intercomparison of column aerosol optical depths from CALIPSO
and MODIS‐Aqua, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 131–141, doi:10.5194/amt-4-
131-2011.
Kratz, D. P., and F. G. Rose (1999), Accounting for molecular absorption
within the spectral range of the CERES window channel, J. Quant. Spec-
trosc. Radiat. Transf., 61, 83–95, doi:10.1016/S0022-4073(97)00203-3.
L’Ecuyer, T. S., and G. L. Stephens (2003), The tropical oceanic energy
budget from TRMM perspective. Part I: Algorithm and uncertainties,
J. Clim., 16, 1967–1985, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<1967:
TTOEBF>2.0.CO;2.
Lin, B., P. W. Stackhouse Jr., P. Minnis, B. A. Wielicki, Y. Hu, W. Sun,
T.‐F. Fun, and L. M. Hinkelman (2008), Assessment of global annual
atmospheric energy balance from satellite observations, J. Geophys.
Res., 113, D16114, doi:10.1029/2008JD009869.
Loeb, N. G., S. Kato, K. Loukachine, and N. Manlo‐Smith (2005), Angular
distribution models for top‐of‐atmosphere radiative flux estimation from
the clouds and the Earth’s radiant energy system instrument on the Terra
satellite. Part I: Methodology, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 22, 338–351,
doi:10.1175/JTECH1712.1.
Loeb, N. G., S. Kato, K. Loukachine, and N. Manlo‐Smith (2007), Angular
distribution models for top‐of‐atmosphere radiative flux estimation from
the clouds and the Earth’s radiant energy system instrument on the Terra
satellite. Part II: Validation, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 24, 564–584,
doi:10.1175/JTECH1983.1.
Maddux, B. C., S. A. Acerman, and S. Platnick (2010), Viewing geometry
dependence in MODIS cloud products, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 27,
1519–1528, doi:10.1175/2010JTECHA1432.1.
Minnis, P. (1989), Viewing zenith angle dependence of cloudiness deter-
mined from coincident GOES East and GOES West data, J. Geophys.
Res., 94, 2303–2320, doi:10.1029/JD094iD02p02303.
Minnis, P., and E. F. Harrison (1984), Diurnal variability of regional cloud
and clear‐sky radiative parameters derived from GOES data, Part I:
Analysis method, J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol., 23, 993–1011, doi:10.1175/
1520-0450(1984)023<0993:DVORCA>2.0.CO;2.
Minnis, P., et al. (2008a), Cloud detection in non‐polar regions for CERES
using TRMM VIRS and Terra and Aqua MODIS data, IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., 46, 3857–3884, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2008.2001351.
Minnis, P., C. R. Yost, S. Sun‐Mack, and Y. Chen (2008b), Estimating the
physical top altitude of optically thick ice clouds from thermal infrared
satellite observations using CALIPSO data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35,
L12801, doi:10.1029/2008GL033947.
Minnis, P., et al. (2010), Edition CERES 3 cloud retrievals, paper presented
at 13th Conference on Atmospheric Radiation, Am. Meteorol. Soc.,
Portland, Ore., 27 June to 2 July.
Minnis, P., et al. (2011), CERES Edition‐2 cloud property retrievals using
TRMM VIRS and Terra and Aqua MODIS data, Part I: Algorithms,
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 99, 1–27, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2011.
2144601.
Moody, E. G., M. D. King, S. Platnick, C. B. Schaaf, and Feng Gao (2005),
Spatially complete global surface albedos: Value‐added datasets derived
from Terra MODIS land products, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.,
43, 144–158, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2004.838359.
Oreopoulos, L., and H. W. Barker (1999), Accounting for subgrid‐scale
cloud variability in a multi‐layer 1D solar radiative transfer algorithm,
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 125, 301–330.
Remer, L. A., et al. (2005), The MODIS aerosol algorithm, products, and
validation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, doi:10.1175/JAS3385.1.
Rienecker, M. M., et al. (2008), The GOES‐5 data assimilation system—
Documentation of versions 5.0.1, 5.1.0, and 5.2.0, in Technical Report
Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation, vol. 27, edited by
M. Suarez, Tech. Rep. NASA/TM‐2008–105606, NASA, Washington,
D. C.
Rose, F., T. Charlock, Q. Fu, S. Kato, D. Rutan, and Z. Jin (2006), CERES
Proto‐Edition 3 radiative transfer: Tests and radiative closure over sur-
face validation sites, paper presented at 12th Conference on Atmospheric
Radiation, Am. Meteorol. Soc., Madison, Wis., 10–14 July. [Available at
http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/cave/.]
Rossow, W. B., and R. A. Schiffer (1991), ISCCP cloud data products,
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 72, 2–20, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1991)
072<0002:ICDP>2.0.CO;2.
Rutan, D., F. Rose, M. Roman, N. Manalo‐Smith, C. Schaaf, and T. Charlock
(2009), Development and assessment of broadband surface albedo from
clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System clouds and radiation swath
data product, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D08125, doi:10.1029/2008JD010669.

D19209 KATO ET AL.: COMPUTATION OF SURFACE IRRADIANCES
Sassen, K., and Z. Wang (2008), Classifying clouds around the globe with
the CloudSat radar: 1‐year of results, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04805,
doi:10.1029/2007GL032591.
Schlosser, C. A., and P. R. Houser (2007), Assessing a satellite‐era perspec-
tive of the global water cycle, J. Clim., 20, 1316–1338, doi:10.1175/
JCLI4057.1.
Smith, G. L. (1994), Effects of time response on the point spread function
of a scanning radiometer, Appl. Opt., 33, 7031–7037, doi:10.1364/
AO.33.007031.
Stephens, G. L., and C. D. Kummerow (2007), The remote sensing of
clouds and precipitation from space: A review, J. Atmos. Sci., 64,
3742–3765, doi:10.1175/2006JAS2375.1.
Stephens, G. L., P. M. Gabriel, and S.‐C. Tsay (1991), Statistical radiative
transport in one‐dimensional media and its application to the terrestrial
atmosphere, Transp. Theory Stat. Phys., 20, 139–175, doi:10.1080/
00411459108203900.
Stephens, G. L., et al. (2002), The CloudSat mission and a‐train, Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 83, 1771–1790, doi:10.1175/BAMS-83-12-1771.
Stephens, G. L., et al. (2008), CloudSat mission: Performance and early
science after the first year of operation, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D00A18,
doi:10.1029/2008JD009982.
Tegen, I., and A. A. Lacis (1996), Modeling of particle size distribution and its
influence on the radiative properties of mineral dust aerosol, J. Geophys.
Res., 101, 19,237–19,244, doi:10.1029/95JD03610.
Toon, O. B., C. P. Mckay, T. P. Ackerman, and K. Santhanam (1989),
Rapid calculation of radiative heating rates and photodissociation rates
in inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres, J. Geophys. Res.,
94, 16,287–16,301, doi:10.1029/JD094iD13p16287.
Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl (2009), Earth’s global energy
budget, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 311–324, doi:10.1175/
2008BAMS2634.1.
Trepte, Q. Z., P. Minnis, C. R. Trepte, S. Sun‐Mack, and R. Brown (2010),
Improved cloud detection in CERES Edition 3 algorithm and comparison
with the CALIPSO Vertical Feature Mask, paper presented at 13th Con-
ference on Atmospheric Radiation and Cloud Physics, Am. Meteorol.
Soc., Portland, Ore., 27 June to 2 July.
Wang, J., W. B. Rossow, and Y. Zhang (2000), Cloud vertical structure
and its variations from 20‐yr global rawinsonde dataset, J. Clim., 13,
3041–3056, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<3041:CVSAIV>2.0.
CO;2.
Wielicki, B. A., R. D. Cess, M. D. King, D. A. Randall, and E. F. Harrison
(1995), Mission to planet Earth: Role of clouds and radiation in climate,
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 76, 2125–2153, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1995)
076<2125:MTPERO>2.0.CO;2.
Wilber, A. C., D. P. Kratz, and S. K. Gupta (1999), Surface emissivity
maps for use in satellite retrievals of longwave radiation, Tech. Memo.
TP‐1999‐209362, NASA, Washington, D. C.
21 of 21
21562202d, 2011, D19, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016050 by University Of Ioannina, Wiley Online Library on [03/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
D19209
Winker, D. M., et al. (2010), The CALIPSO mission: A global 3D view of
aerosols and clouds, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 1211–1229,
doi:10.1175/2010BAMS3009.1.
Wong, T. B. A., R. B. Wielicki, I. I. I. Lee, G. L. Smith, K. A. Bush, and
J. K. Willis (2006), Reexamination of the observed decadal variability
of the Earth radiation budget using altitude‐corrected ERBE/ERBS non-
scanner WFOV data, J. Clim., 19, 4028–4040, doi:10.1175/JCLI3838.1.
Yang, S.‐K., S. Zhou, and A. J. Miller (2000), SMOBA: A 3‐D daily ozone
analysis using SBUV/2 and TOVS measurements, NOAA, Camp
Springs, Md. [Available at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/
stratosphere/SMOBA/smoba_doc.shtml.]
Young, D. F., P. Minnis, D. R. Doelling, G. G. Gibson, and T. Wong
(1998), Temporal interpolation methods for the Clouds and the Earth’s
Radiant Energy System (CERES) experiment, J. Appl. Meteorol., 37,
572–590, doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1998)037<0572:TIMFTC>2.0.CO;2.
Zhang, Y.‐C., W. B. Rossow, and A. A. Lacis (1995), Calculation of sur-
face and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities
based on ISCCP data sets: 1. Method and sensitivity to input data uncer-
tainties, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 1149–1165, doi:10.1029/94JD02747.
Zhang, Y.‐C., W. B. Rossow, A. A. Lacis, V. Oinas, and M. I. Mishchenko
(2004), Calculation of radiative fluxes from the surface to top of atmo-
sphere based on ISCCP and other global data sets: Refinements of the
radiative transfer model and the input data, J. Geophys. Res., 109,
D19105, doi:10.1029/2003JD004457.
Zhang, Y.‐C., W. B. Rossow, and P. W. Stackhouse Jr. (2006), Comparison
of different global information sources used in surface radiative flux calcu-
lation: Radiative properties of the near‐surface atmosphere, J. Geophys.
Res., 111, D13106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006873.
Zhang, Y.‐C., W. B. Rossow, and P. W. Stackhouse Jr. (2007), Compari-
son of different global information sources used in surface radiative flux
calculation: Radiative properties of the surface, J. Geophys. Res., 112,
D01102, doi:10.1029/2005JD007008.
T. P. Charlock, S. Kato, N. G. Loeb, P. Minnis, P. W. Stackhouse Jr.,
B. A. Wielicki, D. M. Winker, and K.‐M. Xu, Climate Science Branch,
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23668‐2199, USA.
(seiji.kato@nasa.gov)
Y. Chen, W. F. Miller, F. G. Rose, D. A. Rutan, and S. Sun‐Mack,
Science Systems and Applications Inc., One Enterprise Pkwy., Ste. 200,
Hampton, VA 23666, USA.
W. D. Collins, Earth and Planetary Science, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
G. L. Stephens, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.