<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACPD</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACPD</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7375</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acpd-2-623-2002</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Retrieval methods of effective cloud cover for the GOME instrument: an intercomparison</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tuinder</surname>
<given-names>O. N. E.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>de Winter-Sorkina</surname>
<given-names>R.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Builtjes</surname>
<given-names>P. J. H.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">
<sup>2</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group><aff id="aff1">
<label>1</label>
<addr-line>Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht (IMAU), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands</addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="aff2">
<label>2</label>
<addr-line>TNO MEP, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands</addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>12</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2002</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>2</volume>
<issue>3</issue>
<fpage>623</fpage>
<lpage>668</lpage>
<permissions>
<license xlink:type="simple">
<license-p>This is an open-access article ditributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/2/623/2002/acpd-2-623-2002.html">This article is available from http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/2/623/2002/acpd-2-623-2002.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/2/623/2002/acpd-2-623-2002.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/2/623/2002/acpd-2-623-2002.pdf</self-uri>
<abstract>
<p>The radiative scattering by clouds leads to errors in the retrieval of column
      densities and concentration profiles of atmospheric trace gas species from
      satellites. Moreover, the presence of clouds changes the UV actinic flux and
      the photo-dissociation rates of various species significantly. The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) instrument on the ERS-2 satellite,
      principally designed to retrieve trace gases in the atmosphere is also capable of detecting clouds. Four cloud fraction retrieval methods for GOME
      data that have been developed are discussed in this paper (the Initial Cloud
      Fitting Algorithm, the PMD Cloud Retrieval Algorithm, the Optical Cloud Recognition Algorithm and the Fast Retrieval Scheme for Cloud
      Observables). Their results of cloud fraction retrieval are compared to each-other and also
      to synoptic surface observations. It is shown that all studied retrieval methods calculate an effective cloud fraction that is related to a cloud with
      a high optical thickness. Generally, we found ICFA to produce the lowest cloud fractions, followed by OCRA, then FRESCO and PC2K along four processed
      tracks (+2%, +10% and +15% compared to ICFA respectively). Synoptical surface observations gave the highest absolute cloud fraction when
      compared with individual PMD sub-pixels of roughly the same size.</p>
</abstract>
<counts><page-count count="46"/></counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body/>
<back>
</back>
</article>