2.1.

GOES-16 Observations

The GOES-16 ABI has 9 LW channels (8 through 16) that capture only terrestrial emissions and 6 SW channels (1 through 6) that capture only reflected and scattered solar radiation. All 9 of these terrestrial-only LW channels are considered for use in the extrapolation algorithm and all 6 solar-only SW channels are extrapolated. We neither use nor extrapolate ABI channel 7 (i.e., the SW window band) since both reflected solar and emitted terrestrial radiation contribute to the signal, but possible future applications to this channel are considered in Sec. 6.6.2. The central wavelengths for all 16 ABI channels are listed in Table 1 along with common nicknames and brief descriptions of each channel’s application(s).^7,19–35

Table 1

List of ABI channels, their central wavelengths, common nicknames, applications, and use in the final extrapolation algorithm.7,19–35

Since this work is primarily motivated by inferring and visualizing cloud properties in SW data, we do not attempt to extrapolate SW reflectance in clear sky conditions. The extrapolation method presented could be applied to clear sky conditions but would likely have different optimal parameters and error characteristics than those presented herein. The operational level 2 binary clear sky mask is used to isolate cloudy pixels in both observations and extrapolations.⁴

The data used are mostly from CONUS scans, which are cropped to latitudes between 24°N and 50°N and longitudes between 125°W and 66°W for computational efficiency. For one case study shown in Sec. 5, mesoscale scans are used instead of CONUS scans to generate an animation because they provide data every minute, as opposed to every 5 min.

Since only LW observations are available at night and all LW channels have a 2-km resolution (at nadir), SW extrapolations also have a 2-km resolution. Four SW channels have native resolutions higher than 2 km: channels 1, 3, and 5 have 1-km resolutions and channel 2 has a 0.5-km resolution. Observations from these high-resolution SW channels are averaged onto the 2-km resolution of all the other ABI channels. The bidirectional reflectance (hereafter simply “reflectance”) from SW channels is normalized to overhead Sun by divided by the cosine of the SZA.

Except for one case study, all of the data used are from daytime hours so the extrapolations can be compared to SW observations. SW observations are impacted by the position of the Sun, but LW observations are not. As a result, SW extrapolations are dependent on the illumination conditions present in the training SW observations. The times of day used for training the extrapolation algorithm are chosen carefully to account for this dependency. Impacts of illumination and viewing geometry are demonstrated and discussed in Secs. 4 and 6.2, respectively.

GOES-16 ABI CONUS scans from August 6, 2018, to August 5, 2019, at $\sim 1500$, 1700, 1800, and 2100 UTC are used to produce the quantitative error analysis presented in Sec. 4. The precise times of observations are all within 10 min of the top of the hour. The subsolar points at 1500, 1700, 1800, and 2100 UTC on the 2018 autumnal equinox are shown in Fig. 1 along with the GOES-16 subsatellite point (0°N, 75.2°W). 1700 UTC is used because it is approximately solar noon for the GOES-16 satellite; as a result, shadows in observed SW imagery should be minimized at this time of day. 1800 UTC is approximately solar noon over the central CONUS, therefore, providing the most consistent illumination across the domain. The 1500 and 2100 UTC times are used because they correspond to morning and afternoon, respectively, but are still daytime for most of the CONUS on the winter solstice. 2100 UTC is particularly unique because the Sun is farther from the GOES-16 satellite than during the other times (Fig. 1). This results in a high Sun-satellite relative azimuth angle (RAA) ($>60\mathrm{deg}$).

Fig. 1

Map of the Western Hemisphere with the subsatellite point for GOES-16 marked (blue diamond), along with the subsolar points for 1500, 1700, 1800, and 2100 UTC (yellow stars) on the 2018 autumnal equinox (22 September).

Because part of the CONUS is dark at 1500 and 2100 UTC in the winter, we discard SW observations where the SZA exceeds 82 deg. The threshold of 82 deg was chosen because it is used to distinguish between day/twilight and night for the GOES-16 level 2 cloud optical and microphysical products.⁵ For one nighttime case study, observed channel 2 reflectance is shown for SZA above 82 deg to demonstrate the transition through day, the terminator, and night. The high SZA observations in this case are used for visualization only, no such data are used to produce or evaluate the extrapolations.

2.2.

VIIRS DNB Observations

Nighttime SW ($0.705\mu \mathrm{m}$) observed radiance from the VIIRS DNB is shown for one case study in Sec. 5.3. Nighttime SW observations from the VIIRS DNB are possible given the sensor’s high sensitivity in lowlight environments and the illumination of clouds by moonlight, starlight, and/or anthropogenic sources.^10,36 The radiance data used are from the 500-m resolution Daily At-sensor Top-of-Atmosphere Nighttime Lights Product (VNP46A1) which is publicly available from the level-1 and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System, Distributed Active Archive Center.³⁶ Radiance, as opposed to reflectance, is shown for the VIIRS DNB since it is difficult to quantify the amount of incoming radiance, and therefore the fraction that is reflected.

3.1.

Extrapolation Algorithm

Figure 2 shows a schematic for the algorithm that extrapolates daytime SW data from some training time out to an extrapolation time when LW observations are already available. Note the algorithm is not a forecast since the LW observations from both the training and extrapolation times are required. For the first step in the algorithm, a single SW extrapolation pixel is chosen and denoted $(x,y)$. The LW brightness temperatures at $(x,y)$ are then compared to the LW brightness temperatures at every training pixel using a cost function. In step two, the three training pixels with the smallest cost are identified using a $k\text{-}d$ tree, which is simply a computationally efficient way to find the minima of a large set.³⁷ These three training pixels are denoted $(x_1^{\prime },y_1^{\prime })$, $(x_2^{\prime },y_2^{\prime })$, and $(x_3^{\prime },y_3^{\prime })$. In the third step, the SW reflectance from the training pixels $(x_1^{\prime },y_1^{\prime })$, $(x_2^{\prime },y_2^{\prime })$, and $(x_3^{\prime },y_3^{\prime })$ is averaged for each SW channel. Those averages then become the extrapolated SW reflectance for the extrapolation pixel $(x,y)$. This process (steps one through three) is repeated for all extrapolation pixels.

Fig. 2

Illustration of the extrapolation algorithm.

Figure 2 shows the process using only three training pixels per extrapolation pixel, but in practice, this number denoted $N$ is a tunable parameter. Also not shown in Fig. 2 are two channel 13 ($10.3\mu \mathrm{m}$) gradient terms which create more realistic texture and shadows in the extrapolated images using spatial context. Horizontal gradients in channel 13 brightness temperature are used as a proxy for gradients in cloud top height which impact cloud texture in SW observations. The channel 13 gradients at a pixel $(x,y)$ are defined as

Three functional forms for the cost function were considered: the city block, Euclidean, and Chebychev forms, defined, respectively, as

Different values of $N$ and the three cost functions above were evaluated using 24-h extrapolations from 1800 to 1800 UTC the following day. Twenty-four-hour extrapolations were used so the Sun positions at both the training and extrapolation times were nearly identical. This is necessary because LW channels are unaffected by Sun position and therefore cannot be used to extrapolate changes (e.g., shadows) in SW channels due to movement of the Sun. Extrapolations beginning and ending at 1800 UTC in particular were used because 1800 UTC is approximately solar noon over the central CONUS, therefore providing the most uniform illumination across the domain.

The root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of all pixels in all 6 SW channels was used to compare the extrapolations to observations from the extrapolation time. RMSE is defined as

Algorithm parameters are optimized by systematically adjusting them one at a time and comparing RMSE from 30 randomly selected 24-h extrapolations valid at 1800 UTC. Using 30 randomly selected times reduces processing time and leaves a larger independent dataset for evaluation. All three cost functions are tested on the 30 24-h 1800 UTC extrapolations using $N$ values of 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60. The city block function with $N=50$ produced the smallest RMSE (not shown), so this configuration was used for the next step in algorithm development: optimization of LW input channels ($B_c$).

Systematically removing LW input channels one at a time from the cost function reveals that some channels are detrimental to the extrapolation. Removing LW channels 8, 9, 10, and 12 (i.e., the water vapor and ozone bands) from the cost function improves results: RMSE for the 30 24-h extrapolations decreases from 12.1% to 11.4% reflectance when all four of these channels are omitted. Of the 5 remaining LW channels (11 and 13 to 16), further removal of channel 16 (i.e., the ${\mathrm{CO}}_2$ band) has the largest impact on RMSE, increasing it from 11.4% to 12.2% reflectance. Removing channel 11 (i.e., the cloud top phase band) has the second largest impact, increasing RMSE from 11.4% to 11.9% reflectance.

Omitting both channel 13 gradient terms decreases RMSE from 11.4% to 11.3% reflectance, but we believe the texture improvement to extrapolated images justifies their inclusion. For example, Fig. 3 shows channel 2 (i.e., the red visible band) observations [rescaled to 2 km (a)] and extrapolations with (b) and without (c) the channel 13 gradient terms for some clouds in the northwest CONUS on 1800 UTC on February 27, 2019 (clear sky pixels appear black because they are not extrapolated). The RMSE for the extrapolation with the channel 13 gradient terms is slightly larger, at 20.0% as opposed to 19.1% reflectance. Though the errors on a pixel-by-pixel level are slightly larger, the shadows and bubbly texture of the observations is only captured if the gradients are included, especially in the areas marked in red in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Observed ABI channel 2 ($0.64\mu \mathrm{m}$) reflectance (a) and 24-h extrapolated ABI channel 2 ($0.64\mu \mathrm{m}$) reflectance including (b) and omitting (c) the ABI channel 13 ($10.3\mu \mathrm{m}$) gradient terms. All images are valid at 1800 UTC on February 27, 2019. Clear sky pixels appear black and red outlines highlight 3 areas where the ABI channel 13 ($10.3\mu \mathrm{m}$) gradient terms resulted in much more realistic cloud texture.

A detailed analysis of local texture is beyond the scope of this paper, but the overall level of variability within each of the images in Fig. 3 can be quantified using the concept of entropy from information theory. To compute the entropy of the images, the reflectance is converted to an 8-bit unsigned integer (by rounding), and the distribution of the resulting integers is computed (omitting clear sky pixels). Then the entropy is defined as

When channel 13 gradient terms are used, the similar-to-observed entropy results in more realistic texture which could be advantageous for human forecasters and the visualization of extrapolated images. For this reason, the most of the results shown in Secs. 4 and 5 use the channel 13 gradient terms. In some places, results omitting these gradient terms are also shown in case users choose to omit them in favor of smaller errors. There are other obvious differences between the observed and extrapolated imagery in Fig. 3, such as the darker-than-observed reflectance in the northeast portion of both extrapolations. The cause of this is discussed in Sec. 5.2 where a deeper analysis of this same case is presented.

The final extrapolation algorithm can be expressed mathematically as

Several additional algorithmic adjustments were considered but did not improve results. Such methods involved: including brightness temperature differences, including surface reflectance information, normalizing each LW brightness temperature by the range or standard deviation of the training data, and including a measure of geographic distance to favor matching training and extrapolations pixels physically near one another.

3.2.

Evaluation Methods

Though the algorithm was developed using RMSE, the mean absolute error (MAE) is used when discussing error statistics and case studies in the following sections. MAE is used instead of RMSE to avoid evaluating the algorithm with the same metric on which it was developed. MAE is also more easily interpreted since it is a simple mean, rather than weighted towards higher errors like RMSE. MAE for the SW channel $c$ is defined as

To assess the quality of the training data, we compute a 0-h MAE for each SW channel. A 0-h MAE is the result of applying the algorithm with the same extrapolation and training times so the extrapolation and training LW observations are identical. The 0-h extrapolated SW reflectance at a pixel $(x,y)$ is, therefore, the result of averaging the original observed SW reflectance at $(x,y)$ with 49 other SW pixels with similar LW characteristics (as determined by the cost function, $F$). 0-h MAE measures how much the SW reflectance for a given channel changes when averaged with 49 other pixels that are similar in the LW. If 0-h MAE is high, it means similar LW brightness temperatures and channel 13 gradients are associated with a wide variety of reflectance values for that SW channel. As demonstrated in Sec. 4, 0-h MAEs of training data are highly correlated with the MAEs of the resulting extrapolations. 0-h MAE can, therefore, be used to optimize the choice of training data.

5.1.

Summer: August 16, 2018

Figure 9 shows the observed (a) and 24-h extrapolated (b) imagery for each SW channel over the CONUS valid at 1800 UTC on August 16, 2018. The MAEs for each channel are noted on the left-hand side for reference. Channel 4 has the smallest MAE (0.85% reflectance), whereas channel 3 has the largest (11.30% reflectance). One area of notable differences in channel 3 is off the coast of Maryland where the extrapolated imagery is brighter than observed (Fig. 9, red markers). The brighter extrapolated imagery around the red marker is due to differences in surface reflectance between ocean and land. Observations in this area show a thin cloud layer throughout with pockets of thicker, brighter clouds. The training pixels used to extrapolate the imagery in this area also have thin clouds but are mostly over land (not shown). Because the clouds are optically thin, the land surface was visible through the clouds in the training imagery. That land surface is brighter than the ocean and causes the extrapolated imagery to be brighter than observed. The impact of the land/ocean differences in this area is most pronounced in channel 3 because this channel is most sensitive to land and vegetation type,¹⁹ but the impact can be seen in other channels as well, especially channel 5. Attempts to improve the extrapolations by incorporating surface reflectance information were unsuccessful (not shown). The issue of surface reflectance beneath optical thin clouds and related future work considerations are discussed further in Sec. 6.4.

Fig. 9

(a) Observed and (b) 24-h extrapolation of SW GOES-16 ABI channels at 1800 UTC August 16, 2018. Areas of clear-sky have been blacked out and the red marker indicates the general area discussed in the text.

The extrapolation was more successful in the convection found in Iowa and southern Minnesota. Figure 10 shows the results zoomed in on this region for a subset of the ABI channels. The observations and extrapolations are still discernable from one another, but the shape and texture of the clouds are similar.

Fig. 10

As in Fig. 9 but zoomed in on convection in the Minnesota/Iowa area for select ABI channels.

5.2.

Winter: February 27, 2019

Compared to the 16 August example, performance of the algorithm is notably worse for the 24-h extrapolations valid at 1800 UTC on February 27, 2019—both in terms of MAE and in qualitative comparisons of the imagery (Fig. 11). The impacts of surface reflectance are even more pervasive in this example. Snow-covered land and ice-free rivers beneath thin clouds are visible in the observed channels 1 through 3 over Iowa and Eastern Nebraska (Fig. 12 and red markers in Fig. 11), but the extrapolated imagery is too dark and does not show surface features. This is because many of the training pixels that went into creating the extrapolated imagery here were from thin clouds over snow-free land or ocean (not shown). The same issue is responsible for the darker-than-observed reflectance the northeast portion of Fig. 3 in Sec. 3.1.

Fig. 11

(a) Observed and (b) 24-h extrapolation of SW GOES-16 ABI channels at 1800 UTC on February 27, 2019. Areas of clear-sky appear black. Red and green markers indicate two areas discussed in the text.

Fig. 12

As in Fig. 11 but zoomed in on the cloud system in the Missouri/Kansas/Iowa area for select ABI channels.

There are also large errors in the cloud system from Northern Illinois and Indiana down to Texas, especially in channel 5 [i.e., the snow/ice band (Fig. 12) and green markers in Fig. 11]. These errors are due to the lower liquid cloud showing through the thin upper cirrus cloud and causing errors in a similar manner to surface reflectance differences. Animations of the observed channel 5 make the separation between these cloud layers apparent because they move in different directions and at different speeds (not shown). Animations also suggest this upper cloud layer covers most of the area but is very thin in some areas, so the brighter, lower cloud below is still visible in the observations. In the extrapolated imagery, the cirrus clouds obscure more of the lower cloud because many of the training pixels had similarly thin cirrus clouds, but no lower cloud beneath (not shown).

5.3.

Hurricane Barry: July 13–14, 2019

Since the intended application of this work is to provide SW extrapolations through nighttime, this example shows actual nighttime extrapolations even though only qualitative comparisons to VIIRS DNB observations are possible. Hurricane Barry from July, 2019 was chosen for this case study because it also highlights a potential application of the extrapolated imagery: detecting the center of low-level circulation in hurricanes and tropical storms at night. High cirrus clouds often obscure lower clouds in LW imagery but are more transparent in the SW, so low-level circulation is best inferred from SW imagery.¹⁰ Since only LW is available at night, scientists monitoring the storms often experience “sunrise surprise” when the first morning SW imagery becomes available and the low-level circulation more apparent.⁹

Although the previous case studies have highlighted some limitations associated with thin cirrus clouds, nighttime extrapolations may still provide value to forecasters in the absence of SW observations. Video 1 shows an animation of the observed channel 13 brightness temperature (a) and channel 2 reflectance (b), along with the extrapolated reflectance for channel 2 (c), 4 (d), 5 (e), and 6 (f) from 2151 UTC on July 13, 2019 to 1400 UTC on July 14, 2019. Figure 13 also shows imagery from 2151 UTC, the first frame of Video 1. The extrapolated imagery was trained using observations from 2150 UTC on 13 July. This training time was chosen because channel 2 (i.e., the red visible band) has the lowest 0-h MAE of all images after 1800 UTC on 13 July.

Fig. 13

Mesoscale GOES-16 imagery of Hurricane Barry at 2216 UTC: (a) observed channel 13 brightness temperature; (b) observed channel 2 reflectance; (c) extrapolated channel 2 reflectance; (d) extrapolated channel 4 reflectance; (e) extrapolated channel 5 reflectance; and (f) extrapolated channel 6 reflectance. Extrapolations were trained at 2215 UTC. Reflectance for channels 4, 5, and 6 is multiplied by 1.5 to increase contrast while maintaining the same color scale for all SW images. This is the first frame in Video 1 (Video 1, MOV, 36 MB [URL: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.15.038501.1]).

The extrapolated ABI channel 2 reflectance at 0741 UTC is also shown in Figure 14(b) beside VIIRS DNB imagery from approximately the same time (a). The brightest areas in the VIIRS image are of city lights, which are visible even beneath clouds in many areas of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The bright white stripe in the convective cell south of the Texas-Louisiana border is an artifact in the VIIRS imagery. Comparing the extrapolated ABI and observed VIIRS imagery reveals very similar structure in the main convective cells along the coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The dark areas along the Louisiana and eastern Texas coastline in the extrapolated ABI imagery are not similarly dark in the VIIRS image, but do appear to be associated with a layer of cirrus, as seen by the wispy texture in the VIIRS image. The VIIRS imagery also shows more clouds in northeast Texas and northwest Louisiana, which were missed by the level 2 ABI clear sky mask, resulting in no extrapolated imagery in the area.

Fig. 14

(a) The VIIRS DNB ($0.705\mu \mathrm{m}$) radiance at $\sim 7:40$ UTC on July 14, 2019 and (b) the extrapolated ABI channel 2 ($0.64\mu \mathrm{m}$) reflectance at $\sim 7:41$ UTC on July 14, 2019.

When animated in Video 1, the clouds in the northwest portion of the extrapolated ABI imagery also jump around due to the degraded nighttime quality of the clear sky mask. The discontinuity in the video at approximately 1100 UTC on 14 July is due to the mesoscale sector shifting northeastward. Despite these artifacts, the low-level circulation of clouds is more apparent in the extrapolated SW animations than the observed channel 13 brightness temperature. After sunset, the low-level circulation is most apparent in extrapolated channels 2 and 5 in eastern and coastal Texas. The low-level clouds in this area appear as bright clouds moving south/southeastward beneath darker upper-level clouds moving northeastward. The ability to visualize this vertical wind shear more easily than with LW imagery alone may aid in hurricane monitoring and forecasting.

6.1.

Relative Importance of LW Inputs

The relative importance of different LW inputs to the extrapolation algorithm is generally consistent with the established remote sensing applications of ABI channels. All LW water vapor channels (8, 9, and 10) are omitted from the algorithm because they hinder the extrapolations. These channels primarily contain information about the moisture content of the atmosphere above cloud top and are thus used for tracking water vapor and the jet stream.^19,24–30 The only SW channel with similar properties is channel 4 and water vapor channels do lower RMSE slightly for this channel in particular (not shown). Also omitted from the algorithm, channel 12 is sensitive to ozone absorption and used to discern upper troposphere dynamics as well as total column ozone.¹⁹ Since there is no similarly ozone-sensitive SW channel, it is unsurprising that this channel hindered the extrapolations.

Channels 11 and 16 are the most important for the algorithm in terms of their impact on overall RMSE: removal of channel 11 (16) increased RMSE from 11.4% to 11.9% (12.2%) reflectance. The importance of channel 11 likely lies in its ability to discern cloud top phase, in which channels 5 and 6 are especially sensitive.^19,21 The importance of channel 16 is consistent with its importance to derived cloud products such as cloud top height due to its ability to discern upper-troposphere features.^19,32–35 Individually, channels 13, 14, and 15 are each less important than channels 11 and 16 likely because these three channels are all very similar, just with varying sensitivities to water vapor.^19,31 Removal of any one of these channels has only a slight impact on performance, since much of the same information is contained in the remaining two channels.

6.2.

Complications from Sun-Satellite Geometry

The sensitivity of the algorithm to the time of day, as seen in Figs. 5 and 7, is likely the result of differences in Sun-satellite geometry. Because LW data are not impacted by the position of the Sun, extrapolations are dependent on the Sun’s position at the training time. Comparing extrapolations to observations at times of day other than the training time therefore introduces an additional source of discrepancy associated with the illumination conditions in the observations. This is a limitation of the evaluation method rather than an error in the extrapolations. The extrapolations are not meant to extrapolate the effects of Sun position since that would defeat the purpose of producing nighttime extrapolations. We minimize the impact of changes in Sun position by doing most analysis with 24-h extrapolations. Unfortunately, we cannot change the length of the extrapolation while controlling for Sun-satellite geometry except by implementing an extrapolation length with a factor of 24 h.

Differences in Sun-satellite geometry between training and extrapolation times are likely responsible for the higher than predicted MAEs for extrapolation lengths other than 24 and 48 h. When the training and extrapolation times of day are not the same, 71.1% to 100.0% of extrapolated MAEs are larger than predicted by Eq. (7) (Table 2). Since Eq. (7) does not account for changes in Sun position, the higher than predicted MAEs are actually expected for these extrapolation lengths.

Sun position also explains the high 0-h MAEs of 2100 UTC observations and the large deviations from predicted MAE when the extrapolation time is 2100 UTC but the training time is not. At 2100 UTC, the Sun is over the Pacific Ocean, resulting in a large RAA ($>60\mathrm{deg}$) between the Sun and satellite (GOES-16 is located at 75.2°W over the East Coast of the United States). Larger RAA results in more shadows which are difficult to extrapolate. When 2100 UTC is the training time, the errors associated with the large RAA are incorporated into the 0-h MAEs, but when 2100 UTC is only the extrapolation time, the large RAA only impacts the verification imagery. This is likely why extrapolation times of 2100 UTC have larger deviations from the MAE regression than other extrapolations of the same length [e.g., 3-h MAEs for 1500 to 1800 UTC fall within 25% of predicted 41.5% of the time, but for 1800 to 2100 UTC extrapolations this value is only 18.9% (Table 2)].

6.3.

Choosing Training Data

Given the complexity of Sun-satellite geometry, we believe the regressions developed using 24-h MAEs [Eqs. (7) and (8)] are the best predictors of error. Compared to 48-h extrapolations, which also control for Sun-satellite geometry, the regression has a positive bias (only 13.6% of points are above the regression line). However, 48 h is much a longer extrapolation time than would be used in practice so it was inappropriate to include these points in the regression.

We recommend using Eq. (7) [or Eq. (8)] to optimize the choice of training time by weighing older observations with smaller 0-h MAEs versus more recent observations with higher 0-h MAEs. Using this decision-making and the CONUS scans used herein, observations from 1500, 1700, 1800, and 2100 UTC would be used 85.7%, 1.7%, 5.1%, and 7.5% of the time, respectively, for extrapolation times of 0600 UTC the following day (about midnight over the CONUS). For extrapolation times of 1500 UTC, the following day (about dawn over the West Coast in winter), 1500, 1700, 1800, and 2100 UTC training times would be used 1.9%, 16.7%, 69.6%, and 11.8% of the time, respectively. These statistics consider each channel individually, since 0-h MAE is specific to each channel. For 0600 UTC extrapolations, each channel would have used the same training time 68.5% of the time, but for 1500 UTC extrapolations, this value is only 34.1%.

Users will have to weigh the cost/benefit of using different training times for different channels and changing the training time throughout the night. It may be desirable to choose a constant training time of day so as to not compute 0-h MAE and predict MAE for each time and channel throughout the day. Under these circumstances, we would recommend choosing 1800 UTC since it is about solar noon and the most popular training time for extrapolations to 1500 UTC. Note that these times apply to GOES-16 specifically—for GOES-17 (137.2°W) and Himawari-8 (140.7°E), the times should be shifted by 4 and 12 h, respectively. For example, if 1800 UTC is used for GOES-16, then 2200 UTC should be used for GOES-17 and 0600 UTC for Himawari-8 to preserve similar Sun-satellite RAAs.

Times of day when only part of the CONUS is illuminated present unique circumstances and there are several options for extrapolating the night/terminator portion of the domain. The night/terminator portion could be extrapolated using the daytime portion of the domain, or using observations from a previous time when the whole domain was illuminated. In the case of morning/dawn imagery, either of these approaches seem appropriate since 1500 UTC (morning over the CONUS) scans have relatively low 0-h MAEs. With evening/dusk imagery, we strongly caution against using the daytime portion to extrapolate the night/terminator portions since 2100 UTC observations have relatively high 0-h MAEs.

For research and analysis of past weather events, errors may be reduced by interpolating SW observations through the night using observations from both the previous and subsequent days.

6.4.

Optically Thin Clouds

Case studies suggest optically thin clouds are a major source of error because such clouds are more opaque in the LW than SW.¹⁰ In these cases, the SW observations are impacted by the lower cloud or surface which is visible through the higher cloud. The LW brightness temperatures are less impacted by the underlying conditions, so those conditions are not well accounted for in the extrapolation algorithm.

Many attempts to reduce errors associated with surface reflectance beneath optically thin clouds were made and all were unsuccessful. Surface reflectance information from numerical weather prediction (NWP) was considered as an additional term in the algorithm’s cost function, but resulted in higher errors for optically thick clouds because the surface reflectance is irrelevant information in such cases. We considered using the level 2 GOES-16 cloud optical depth product to isolate areas of thin clouds where the surface was visible, but the product has decreased accuracy at night and over snow,⁵ precisely when and where accuracy is most needed to enhance SW extrapolations. As advancements are made in optical depth retrievals over snow and ice at night, special treatment of thin clouds in the extrapolations should be reconsidered.

Future work may also consider using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to remove training pixels where the surface is visible beneath optically thin clouds. CNNs are a popular area of research in image processing because they can identify objects (e.g., clouds and land surface features) using texture and spatial context from the surrounding pixels. Studies have demonstrated the potential for CNNs to enhance cloud detection using high-resolution ($<100\mathrm{m}$) LEO satellites such as Landsat-8.^40–44 One study had overall cloud detection accuracy of 97.05% from Landsat-8 images and provided examples of successful identification of clouds over snow and ice.⁴² Some CNNs also distinguish between optically thin and thick clouds,^40,41 which would allow for special treatment of areas where the surface is visible.

Although many studies have demonstrated the utility of CNNs on high-resolution ($<100\mathrm{m}$) imagery, the technique would need to be adjusted for the scale of GOES-16 imagery. All of the CNN studies previously mentioned used imagery from LEO satellites where each pixel is about 10 to 100 m across, but GOES-16 pixels are at least 0.5 km and LW pixels are at least 2 km across. Additional work would be needed to adapt the CNNs to the coarser resolution imagery since the patterns present at 10- to 100-m scales likely differ from those present at 0.5- to 2-km scales.

6.5.

Domain Size Considerations

Low-level clouds and cloud texture may also benefit from domains smaller than the CONUS, such as in the Hurricane Barry example that used a mesoscale domain (Sec. 5.3). Adding a physical distance term to the cost function [Eq. (5)] did not improve RMSE in 24-h CONUS extrapolations, possibly because clouds move and evolve too much over 24 h. Shorter extrapolations may benefit from such a term, however. For longer extrapolations, an object-based domain may be appropriate where extrapolation pixels in some mesoscale features are extrapolated using training pixels from that same feature in the training time. This is essentially what was done in Sec. 5.3 for Hurricane Barry using mesoscale sector data.

Mesoscale object-based extrapolations could benefit thin clouds by reducing the probability of different surfaces or low-level cloud conditions between the training and extrapolation pixels. It would likely improve extrapolation cloud texture and shadowing by implicitly grouping pixels with similar Sun-satellite geometry as well. The channel 13 gradient terms extrapolate such texture and shadows by inferring where shadows are based on cloud top height differences, but the location of shadows is dependent on the position of the Sun and satellite relative to the clouds. For example, shadows in the morning appear to the west of tall clouds, but in the evening, they appear to the east. The assumption underlying the inclusion channel 13 gradient terms is that shadows are cast in roughly the same direction across the domain.

The errors associated with this assumption of uniform shadowing scale with the size of the domain since the larger the domain, the more the orientation of shadows with respect to tall clouds will vary. In the extreme case of full-disk sectors, which include the entire hemisphere viewed by GOES-16, channel 13 gradient terms are unlikely to provide any benefit to cloud texture or shadow extrapolation due to the large variation in Sun-satellite viewing geometry across the domain. In smaller mesoscale domains, the variability in Sun position is minimal so all shadows are cast in roughly the same direction, making them easier to extrapolate using the channel 13 gradients.

6.6.

Additional Applications

The algorithm used herein to extrapolate SW GOES-16 ABI channels through the night could be applied to similar geostationary satellite imagers such as the ABI onboard GOES-17 and the Advanced Himawari Imager on Himawari-8, as well as derived (level 2) products from any of these imagers. With modification, the method may also be able to fill some of the outages on GOES-17 due to the loop heat pipe (LHP) issue. It may also be possible to extrapolate the reflected portion of ABI channel 7 through the night.