A simplified method for the detection of convection using high-resolution imagery from GOES-16
Abstract. The ability to detect convective regions and to add latent heating to drive convection is one of the most important additions to short-term forecast models such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model. Since radars are most directly related to precipitation and are available in high temporal resolution, their data are often used for both detecting convection and estimating latent heating. However, radar data are limited to land areas, largely in developed nations, and early convection is not detectable from radars until drops become large enough to produce significant echoes. Visible and infrared sensors on a geostationary satellite can provide data that are more sensitive to small droplets, but they also have shortcomings: their information is almost exclusively from the cloud top. Relatively new geostationary satellites, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-16 and Satellite-17 (GOES-16 and GOES-17), along with Himawari-8, can make up for this lack of vertical information through the use of very high spatial and temporal resolutions, allowing better observation of bubbling features on
convective cloud tops. This study develops two algorithms to detect convection at vertically growing clouds and mature convective clouds using
1  min GOES-16 Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) data. Two case studies are used to explain the two methods, followed by results applied to 1 month of data over the contiguous United States. Vertically growing clouds in early stages are detected using decreases in brightness temperatures
over 10 min. For mature convective clouds which no longer show much of a decrease in brightness temperature, the lumpy texture from rapid
development can be observed using 1  min high spatial resolution reflectance data. The detection skills of the two methods are validated against
Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor System (MRMS), a ground-based radar product. With the contingency table, results applying both methods to 1-month data
show a relatively low false alarm rate of 14.4 % but missed 54.7 % of convective clouds detected by the radar product. These convective
clouds were missed largely due to less lumpy texture, which is mostly caused by optically thick cloud shields above.