ccplot profile vs. CALIOP browse image profiles

[Andrew P. <and...@mo...>]

Hi,

Thank you for creating such a wonderful piece of software and for keeping all of the code open source!

I’ve been trying to generate CALIOP profiles that best match the NASA browse image accessible here: http://www-calipso.larc.nasa.gov/products/lidar/browse_images/production/ <http://www-calipso.larc.nasa.gov/products/lidar/browse_images/production/>

ccplot has come the closest! However, as with my own script, there is a lot of “noise” from ~ 0–8.2 km, that is not apparent in the NASA browse images.

Is there a way to overcome this?  Have the NASA browse images had some sort of smoothing or masking applied?  If so, is there any documentation on this?

I’ve attached some figures to demonstrate the problem.  While ccplot does a good job representing large profiles, there is generally too much noise to identify cloud/aerosol signals located within small latitude ranges and at low altitudes (0–8.2 km).

Kind Regards,

Andrew	



--
Andrew Prata

PhD Candidate
School of Earth, Atmosphere & Environment
9 Rainforest Walk
Monash University, VIC 3800

Mobile: +61 414 873 225
Office Number: 224