erling
Uploaded by
15 SLIDES
289 VIEWS
150LIKES

Analyzing Cloud Coverage and Mineral Concentration Effects on Remote Sensing Data in Hydrolight

DESCRIPTION

This study evaluates the impact of cloud coverage and mineral concentration on remote sensing reflectance (Rrs) using the HydroLight model. Cloud coverage showed no significant effect on the diffuse attenuation coefficient (Kd) and Rrs, although some variations were observed. Measured and predicted Rrs values aligned reasonably well despite outliers. The study highlights the influence of mineral concentration on Rrs and the effects of bottom reflectance in optically shallow waters. These findings contribute to understanding water optics and improving model accuracy.

1 / 15

Download Presentation

Analyzing Cloud Coverage and Mineral Concentration Effects on Remote Sensing Data in Hydrolight

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lab 9 Hydrolight and Ecolight

  2. Q1. Imputing measured Chl(z) data

  3. Different models gave us various Rrs

  4. Percent cloud coverage impacts Ed.

  5. Kd(1/m) • Cloud has no effects on Kd. • At wavelength of 445nm and 555nm, Kd has a similar trend as Chl conc. Depth (m)

  6. Cloud coverage has no effect on Rrs. • But we had a outlier in our model output.

  7. As cloud coverage increases, μd decreases. • Multiple scattering events cause μd to approach 0.5 with increasing depth. μd Depth(m)

  8. Q2. Import IOPs a b

  9. HydroLight Input: Predicted vs. Measured Rrs

  10. Predicted vs. Measured Rrs Reasonable, given that measurements were taken over a week long period (not ready to ask for my money back yet). Captures the high absorption of CDOM in the blue, something not capture by the case 1 models.

  11. Q3. IOP Case 2 water model • Influence of the mineral concentration on the Rrs • Rrsincreases with the mineral concentration

  12. Q3. IOP Case 2 water model • Influence of the mineral composition on the Rrs

  13. Q4. simulatingopticallyshallow water • Influence of the bottomreflectance on the Rrs • Bahamas - Coralsandbottom • HigherRrs for shallowerbottoms

  14. Influence of the bottomreflectance on two K functions

  15. Q5- hydrolight support user2 hypotheses: Problems caused by wrong backscatter number or data inputBackscatter changes don’t appear to help drop the hydrolight curveEditing out the anomalous data line appears to create the desired shape

More Related