Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 118, Issue 4, pp 695–706 | Cite as

A comparison of satellite-retrieved and simulated cloud coverage in the Baltic Sea area as part of the BALTIMOS project

  • M. Reuter
  • J. Fischer
Special Issue


A cloud-detection algorithm for METEOSAT first generation data has been developed. The algorithm utilizes solely infrared data from the METEOSAT thermal infrared window channel at around 11.5 μm. The developed algorithm estimates an assumed clear-sky brightness temperature from time series analysis on pixel bases. Land-/sea-depending dynamic thresholds are then utilized discriminating the infrared images in cloudy, undecided, and cloud free pixels. The cloud-detection algorithm has been validated against synoptic observations. The developed cloud-detection scheme has been applied to 10 years (1992–2001) of METEOSAT data, extracting cloud coverage statistics for the Baltic Sea catchment area. These have been compared to corresponding cloud coverage statistics derived from the BALTIMOS coupled model system. Building overall averaged values of the cloud coverage in the period from 1999 to 2001 gives results with very good agreement between simulation and observation: the total METEOSAT-derived cloud coverage amounts to 0.65 compared to 0.63 for BALTIMOS. In contrast, large discrepancies in the phase of the diurnal cycle of cloud coverage have been observed. A significant trend in total cloud amount was observed neither from the model nor from the satellite.


Cloud Coverage Brightness Temperature Diurnal Cycle International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project Total Cloud Coverage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was funded by the BALTIMOS project which is a contribution to the BMBF research program DEKLIM-FKZ: 01 LD 0027.

We thank Dr. E. Reimer for providing the dataset of synop observations and Philip Lorenz for providing the BALTIMOS data.

We thank the reviewers for their constructive revisions and comments.


  1. Ackerman S et al (1998) Discriminating clear sky from clouds with MODIS. J Geophys Res-Atmos 103(D24):32141–32157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman S et al. (2002) Discriminating clear sky from cloud (algorithm theoretical basis documents) NASA Goddard space flight center, ATBD-MOD-06, Version 4 (10.01.2002)
  3. Deeter MN, Evans KF (1998) A hybrid Eddington single scattering radiative transfer model for computing radiances from thermally emitting atmospheres. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 60(4):635–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hahn CJ, Warren SG, London J (1995) The effect of moonlight on observation of cloud cover at night, and application to cloud climatology. J Climate 8(5):1429–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Houghton JT et al (2001) Climate Change 2001—the scientific basis, contribution of working Group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 944Google Scholar
  6. Jacob D (2001) A note to the simulation of the annual and inter-annual variability of the water budget over the Baltic Sea drainage basin. Meteorol Atmos Phys 77:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacob D, Van den Hurk BJJM, Andrae U, Elgered G, Fortelius C, Graham LP, Jackson SD, Karstens U, Köpken Chr, Lindau R, Podzun R, Rockel B, Rubel F, Sass BH, Smith RNB, Yang X (2001) A comprehensive model inter-comparison study investigating the water budget during the BALTEX-PIDCAP period. Meteorol Atmos Phys 77:19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Joseph JH, Wiscombe WJ, Weinman JA (1976) Delta-Eddington approximation for radiative flux-transfer. J Atmos Sci 33(12):2452–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kriebel KT et al (2003) The cloud analysis tool APOLLO: improvements and validations. Int J Remote Sens 24(12):2389–2408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lorenz P, Jacob D (2009) BALTIMOS—a fully coupled modeling system for the Baltic Sea and its drainage basin. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, this issue (submitted 2006)Google Scholar
  11. McClatchey RA et al. (1972) Optical properties of the atmosphere (third edition), Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Report AFCRL-72-0497Google Scholar
  12. Mohr T (1971) Comparison of satellite and soil observations—cloud behavior (cloud amount greater than 4/8) in European North Atlantic Region, April 1, 1966, to March 31, 1967. Meteorol Rundsch 24(4):112–120Google Scholar
  13. Rathke C, Fischer J (2000) Retrieval of cloud microphysical properties from thermal infrared observations by a fast iterative radiance fitting method. J Atmos Ocean Technol 17(11):1509–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reuter M (2005) Identification of cloudy and clear sky areas in MSG SEVIRI images by analyzing spectral and temporal information (Ph.D. thesis),,07/2005
  15. Reuter M, Thomas W, Albert P, Lockhoff M, Weber R, Karlsson K-G, Fischer J (2009) The CM-SAF and FUB cloud detection schemes for SEVIRI: validation with synoptic data and initial comparison with MODIS and CALIPSO. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48(2):301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roeckner E, Arpe K, Bengtsson L, Christoph M, Claussen M, Dümenil L, Esch M, Schlese U, Schulzweida U (1996) The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM4: model description and simulation of present-day climate. Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Report No. 218Google Scholar
  17. Rossow WB (1989) Measuring cloud properties from space: a review. J Climate 2(3):201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rossow WB, Garder LC (1993a) Cloud detection using satellite measurements of infrared and visible radiances for ISCCP. J Climate 6(12):2341–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rossow WB, Garder LC (1993b) Validation of ISCCP cloud detections. J Climate 6(12):2370–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rossow WB, Walker AW, Garder LC (1993) Comparison of ISCCP and other cloud amounts. J Climate 6(12):2394–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saunders RW, Kriebel KT (1988) An improved method for detecting clear sky and cloudy radiances from AVHRR data. Int J Remote Sens 9(1):123–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schwartz B, Govett M (1992) A hydrostatically consistent North American radiosonde data base at the forecast systems laboratory, 1946–present (NOAA technical memorandum). NOAA, Forecast Systems Laboratory, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  23. Walther A, Bennartz R (2009) The diurnal cycle of non-frontal precipitation in the Baltic area from observations and models. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, this issue (submitted 2006)Google Scholar
  24. Wilks, D. S., 1995: Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences. Academic, San Diego, ISBN 0-12-751965-3, pp. 248-250Google Scholar
  25. Woodcock F (1976) Evaluation of yes–no forecasts for scientific and administrative purposes. Mon Weather Rev 104(10):1209–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für WeltraumwissenschaftenFreie Univerität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institut für UmweltphysikUniversität BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations