the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact of Cloud Vertical Structure Perturbations on the Retrieval of Cloud Optical Thickness and Effective Radius from FY4A/AGRI
Abstract. The vertical structure of clouds plays a critical role in atmospheric radiative transfer processes and is a major source of uncertainty in satellite-based retrievals of cloud optical thickness (COT) and cloud effective radius (CER). This study develops a retrieval model for COT and CER based on a random forest framework coupled with spatial gradient features, using multispectral observations from the FY4A/AGRI (Advanced Geostationary Radiation Imager) and simulations from Advanced Radiative Transfer Modeling System (ARMS) over central and eastern China during June–August 2018. The retrieval results agree well with MODIS, with correlation coefficients of 0.87 and 0.91 for COT and CER, respectively. To assess the impact of vertical cloud structure, ten sensitivity experiments varied water and ice content in different cloud layers. The results indicate that upper-level ice clouds significantly mask reflectance from lower clouds, reducing total reflectance by approximately 50 %, leading to lower retrieved values than those of single-layer clouds. For CER < 20 μm, the mean COT increase due to low- and mid-level water cloud variations in single-layer clouds exceeds that in double-layer clouds by about 24 %, primarily due to the masking effect of upper-level ice clouds in double-layer structures. This masking also contributes to retrieval biases in three-layer cloud systems. Furthermore, increased mid-level liquid water enhances the nonlinear relationship between COT and CER, increasing retrieval uncertainties. This study highlights the importance of considering multi-layer cloud structures in remote sensing algorithms and radiative transfer models.
- Preprint
(1780 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2939', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Aug 2025
reply
Clouds play an important role in atmospheric radiation (thus Earth energy budget), weather and climate. Among various cloud properties, cloud optical thickness (COT) and effective radius (CER), which can be revealed by reflected solar radiation, have been widely used to infer cloud radiative effects. Thus, COT and CER have become almost standard cloud products of satellite imagers, and, among them, MODIS provided one of the most popular ones. This manuscript by Sun et al. presented numerical study on the influences of cloud vertical inhomogeneity on the retrieval of cloud COT and CER using AGRI observations. The manuscript is overall clearly organized and presented, while there are some major issues that should be considered before it could be considered for publication.
Major Comments:
1. The focus of this study is suggested to be clarified. This study mainly investigated the influences of vertical structures perturbation on the retrieval, while the use of a particular kind of satellite observations, i.e., FY4A/AGRI, for COT and CER is not new at all. The COT and CER algorithm was the classic Nakajima and King (1989) algorithm, and Liu et al. (2023) (referred in the manuscript) presented the operational FY4A AGRI COT and CER retrieval. Thus, the key contributions of this study are the investigation on vertical structure.
2. Actually, the used of FY4A introduces more “uncertainties”. A recently study indicated that the operational AGRI L1 radiance data themselves may be less reliable due to the calibration degradation (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11071868). Such uncertainties should be considered in the evaluation of the AGRI results.
3. Excellent consistency was noticed in Figure 4 between the results of MODIS and AGRI, while the direct comparisons in Figures 5 and 6 shows clear differences. Such significant differences should be carefully checked. Again, considering the uncertainties on AGRI calibration as well as data collocation, the agreement in Figure 4, which is much better than results in Figures 5 and 6, should be exampled.
4. Some key previous studies on the influences of vertical structure on COT and CER retrievals should be mentioned and discussed. For example, Wang et al., did a systematic study using MODIS observations (https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029681).
5. Actually, Teng et al. (2020) did not try to show that ice-over-water system give more consistent results with observations. They developed a much advanced algorithm to retrieval COTs and CERs of ice-over-water clouds, which is almost a new retrieval algorithm. Meanwhile, their algorithm has been improved to infer cloud top heights as well (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.113425). The ideas of Teng et al. (2020 and 2023) are quite different from the presented study, and should be clarified.
6. What’s the physical reasons for the differences on reflectance of L and M water clouds (i.e., Exp. 1 and Exp. 2) if the only differences was the cloud location.
7. The oscillations in Figures 9c, 9d, 9f, 10a and 10b seems problematic. Especially, the peak in Figure 9f is not natural, and should be carefully checked.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2939-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2939-Understanding Retrieval Biases in Multilayer Cloud Systems', Qingyu Mu, 15 Aug 2025
reply
I'm interested in how the authors analyzed the impact of multilayer clouds on CER and COT retrievals using three months of FY4A/AGRI data combined with ARMS simulations. The paper demonstrates the masking effects of upper ice clouds on lower water clouds, as well as the uncertainties in retrieval results caused by varying water content across different cloud layers - this indeed provides insights for understanding satellite retrieval biases.
My question is: given that multilayer cloud structures introduce nonlinear relationships in the COT-CER space, do these findings suggest we need to pay special attention to this aspect in operational retrievals? Overall, this study not only offers physical explanations for CER/COT retrieval biases but also provides excellent guidance for using remote sensing data in meteorological and climate applications.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2939-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Yunying Li, 16 Aug 2025
reply
Thank you very much for this valuable question. Our results indeed show that multilayer cloud structures enhance the nonlinear relationship between COT and CER, mainly due to the masking effects of upper-level ice clouds and the variable contributions from lower-level water clouds. If operational retrieval algorithms continue to rely on the single-layer assumption, such nonlinearities may introduce systematic biases, and the magnitude of these biases can also depend on the assumed cloud water content. Although most current operational products are still based on single-layer assumptions, our study suggests that incorporating cloud vertical structure information (e.g., from active sensors or improved radiative transfer schemes), or at least flagging and adjusting for potential multilayer cases, could help reduce uncertainties and improve the robustness of retrievals.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2939-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Yunying Li, 16 Aug 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2939', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Sep 2025
reply
This study presents a bispectral retrieval algorithm for determining cloud optical thickness (COT) and cloud effective radius (CER) using data from the Advanced Geostationary Radiation Imager (AGRI) on the FengYun-4A satellite. The algorithm was validated against coincident MODIS cloud products, demonstrating its reliability. Furthermore, ten idealized multi-layer cloud scenarios were employed to investigate the sensitivity of visible and shortwave-infrared (SWIR) reflectance to vertical cloud structure. This study is interesting. I think this paper is publishable after several major revisions before I could recommend it with enthusiasm.
Major comments:
- This study comprises two primary components: i) the development of a CER and COT retrieval algorithm utilizing AGRI data, and ii) an assessment of the sensitivity of simulated visible/SWIR reflectance to vertical cloud configurations through ten idealized multi-layer cloud scenarios. That said, the linkage between these sections currently lacks immediacy. I suggest that improving the second part to detail how vertical cloud structures influence real-world retrieval outcomes would greatly enhance the paper's coherence and narrative progression.
- In agreement with Reviewer #1, although Figure 4 demonstrates excellent consistency between AGRI-derived results and MODIS cloud products, the findings presented in Figures 5 and 6 reveal persistent limitations within the current retrieval algorithm. It is advised that the authors conduct a thorough reassessment of their results, ensuring that the representation in Figure 4 provides an unbiased depiction of the algorithm's capabilities.
Minor comments:
- Line 132: As COT and CER were previously defined, repeating their definitions here is unnecessary.
- Figure 1: Is the logical relationship depicted between “cloud detection” and “cloud” accurate?
- Section 3.1: How are the 4-km AGRI observations/retrievals spatially matched with the 1-km MODIS cloud products?
- Line 349: “10b” should be corrected to “11b”.
- Figure 12: Lacks clarity in showing how visible/SWIR reflectance responds to vertical cloud structure.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2939-RC2
Data sets
FY4A/AGRI multispectral satellite observations for cloud property retrieval (June–August 2018) Chinese Meteorological Administration (CMA) Fengyun Satellite Center https://satellite.nsmc.org.cn/DataPortal/cn/data/order.html
MODIS Level 2 cloud products (MOD06_L2, MYD06_L2) used for training and validation of cloud property retrieval NASA Goddard Space Flight Center https://ladsweb.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/search/order/1/MOD06_L2--61,MYD06_L2--61
ERA5 reanalysis data for atmospheric profiles and cloud vertical structure modeling European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
296 | 27 | 11 | 334 | 7 | 14 |
- HTML: 296
- PDF: 27
- XML: 11
- Total: 334
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1