  Cloud detection is the first step of any complex satellite-based cloud
retrieval. No instrument detects all clouds, and analyses that use a given
satellite climatology can only discuss a specific subset of clouds. We attempt
to clarify which subsets of clouds are detected in a robust way by passive
sensors, and which require active sensors. To do so, we identify where
retrievals of Cloud Amounts (CAs), based on numerous sensors and algorithms,
differ the most. We investigate large uncertainties, and confront retrievals
from the CALIOP lidar, which detects semitransparent clouds and directly
measures their vertical distribution, whatever the surface below. We document
the cloud vertical distribution, opacity and seasonal variability where CAs
from passive sensors disagree most. CALIOP CAs are larger than the passive
average by +0.05 (AM) and +0.07 (PM). Over land, the +0.1 average difference
rises to +0.2 over the African desert, Antarctica and Greenland, where large
passive disagreements are traced to unfavorable surface conditions. Over
oceans, CALIOP retrievals are closer to the average of passive retrievals
except over the ITCZ (+0.1). Passive CAs disagree more in tropical areas
associated with large-scale subsidence, where CALIOP observes a specific
multi-layer cloud population: optically thin, high-level clouds and opaque
(z>7km), shallow boundary layer clouds (z<2km). We evaluate the CA and cloud
vertical distribution from 8 General Circulation Models where passive
retrievals disagree and CALIOP provides new information. We find that modeled
clouds are not more realistic where cloud detections from passive observations
have long been robust, than where active sensors provide more reliable
information.
