Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1463
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1463
14 Apr 2026
 | 14 Apr 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).

Revisiting error models for the assimilation of all-sky infrared satellite radiances

Bingying Shi, Philipp Griewank, Florian Meier, Jinzhong Min, and Martin Weissmann

Abstract. The sensitivity of all-sky infrared radiances to both hydrometeor content and cloud height leads to a very non-Gaussian distribution of first-guess departures. This non-Gaussianity can be mitigated by the application of cloud-dependent error models that normalize departures by an estimate of the cloud-height effect via assigning increased errors in situations with high clouds that can lead to very large departures. In the current study, we systematically evaluate existing error models and propose a revised approach that leads to a better fit to a Gaussian distribution at no additional cost. Furthermore, the revised approach is physically better justified as the cloud effect is estimated by the maximum cloud effect of model and observations, which determines the largest possible departure. Preceding studies, in contrast, used the mean cloud effect of model and observations.

Our study is based on a one-month data set of infrared observations in two water vapor channels (6.2 and 7.3 μm) from the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) onboard the Meteosat Second Generation satellite and corresponding simulations from the weather forecast model AROME (Application of Research to Operations at Mesoscale) over central Europe. The evaluation of different approaches revealed that near-Gaussian departures can be achieved with three different approaches for the estimation of the cloud effect: (1) deviation from a climatologically estimated value; (2) deviation from the clear-sky brightness temperature of a window channel; and (3) deviation from the clear-sky brightness temperature of the channel that is assimilated. For the lower-peaking channel (7.3 μm) with a larger cloud effect, best results were achieved with the first two options. For the 6.2 μm channel, the third option led to a slightly more Gaussian distribution. The third option, however, requires a quality control that eliminates about 10 % of the observations.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Bingying Shi, Philipp Griewank, Florian Meier, Jinzhong Min, and Martin Weissmann

Status: open (until 03 Jun 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Bingying Shi, Philipp Griewank, Florian Meier, Jinzhong Min, and Martin Weissmann
Bingying Shi, Philipp Griewank, Florian Meier, Jinzhong Min, and Martin Weissmann

Viewed

Total article views: 208 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
147 45 16 208 15 17
  • HTML: 147
  • PDF: 45
  • XML: 16
  • Total: 208
  • BibTeX: 15
  • EndNote: 17
Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Apr 2026)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Apr 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 208 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 208 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 03 May 2026
Download
Short summary
The non-Gaussian distribution of first-guess departures can be mitigated by applying cloud-dependent error models. In this study, we evaluate three existing error models and propose a revised approach that leads to a better fit to a Gaussian distribution. Furthermore, the revised approach is physically better justified as the cloud effect is estimated by the maximum cloud effect of model and observations instead of using the mean cloud effect of model and observations.
Share