smos quality working group meeting 2 frascati rome september 13 th 14 th 2010 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th ,2010 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th ,2010

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 55

SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th ,2010 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 61 Views
  • Uploaded on

SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th ,2010. SMOS-BEC Team. Outline. METHODOLOGY TESTS 1. RETRIEVAL MODE Dual from Full vs. Stokes from Full 2. BIAS MITIGATION No correction vs. External Bias Temperature Calibration vs. OTT 3. MODELS

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th ,2010


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. SMOS Quality Working GroupMeeting #2Frascati (Rome), September 13th-14th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team

    2. Outline • METHODOLOGY • TESTS • 1. RETRIEVAL MODE • Dual from Full vs. Stokes from Full • 2. BIAS MITIGATION • No correction vs. External Bias Temperature Calibration vs. OTT • 3. MODELS • Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) • 4. SSS SELECTION • All overpasses vs. Ascending vs. Descending • 5. TB SELECTION • EAF vs. AF • 6. NEW FTR • July vs. August • CONCLUSIONS (+ or -)

    3. Methodology All the results presented are at Level 3 (10-day 2-degree product). Retrievals have been performed using SMOS-OS Level2 Processor. Level 2 data have been filtered according to: Fg_ctrl_reach_maxiter1,2,3: Maximum number of iteration reached before convergence. Fg_ctrl_marq1,2,3: Iterative loop ends because Marquardt increment is greater than lambdaMax (100). Statistical characterization is done considering only points more than 200 km from the coast Fg_sc_land_sea_coast1 = 1 & Fg_sc_land_sea_coast2 = 0

    4. Methodology L2 L3 averaging has been performed according to: The L3 accuracy is also introduced to someway estimate the quality of the measurement

    5. Tests 1.RETRIEVAL MODE 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed Model 2 in the mode “Stokes from Full-Pol” has been used OTT has been applied in accordance to the official DPGS product L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

    6. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps - Dual Cold waters Amazon plume

    7. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps - Stokes’ I Cold waters Amazon plume

    8. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps

    9. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps - Accuracy 2.5 psu

    10. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 statistics - Dual rms rms 0.2260 2.2565 2.2678 0.2958 1.4391 1.4692 0.5559 1.4457 1.5489 0.5278 0.5805 0.7846

    11. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 statistics – Stokes’ I rms rms +4% 0.2445 2.3505 2.3631 +14% 0.2935 1.6756 1.7011 0.6157 1.5464 1.6645 +7% 0.6080 0.5932 0.8495 +8%

    12. Tests 2.BIAS MITIGATION 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” has been used No correction, external brightness temperature calibration[*], and OTT have been applied L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

    13. Tests – Bias mitigation External Brightness Temperature Calibration Constant within the snapshot (xi, eta) but varying in time Ocean Target Transformation Constant in time but varying within the same snapshot

    14. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – No bias mitigation

    15. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – External Brightness Temperature Calibration

    16. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – External Brightness Temperature Calibration MEAN BIAS SUBTRACTED Less intense land-sea transition effect

    17. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – Ocean Target Transformation

    18. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps - Accuracy 2.5 psu

    19. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 statistics – no bias mitigation rms rms 3.9591 2.6742 4.7776 4.1488 1.8571 4.5455 3.3468 3.7604 5.8288 3.5769 0.6343 3.6327

    20. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 statistics – External Brightness Temperature Calibration rms rms -14% -20% 2.9600 2.3886 3.8036 3.1541 1.7764 3.6199 2.1981 1.7300 2.7972 -52% 2.2214 0.5801 2.2959 -37%

    21. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 statistics – Ocean Target Transformation rms rms -52% -68% 0.2260 2.2565 2.2678 0.2958 1.4391 1.4692 0.5559 1.4457 1.5489 -73% 0.5278 0.5805 0.7846 -78%

    22. Tests 3.MODELS 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product Model 2 and Model 3(16) are compared L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

    23. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps – Model 2

    24. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps – Model 3(16)

    25. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps

    26. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) SST L3 maps

    27. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) WS L3 maps FROM ASCAT

    28. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) Scatterplot

    29. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps - Accuracy 2.5 psu

    30. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 statistics – Model 2 rms rms 0.2445 2.3505 2.3631 0.2935 1.6756 1.7011 0.6157 1.5464 1.6645 0.6080 0.5932 0.8495

    31. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 statistics – Model 3(16) rms rms +13% +21% 0.8302 2.5735 2.7041 0.9346 1.9486 2.1611 0.8490 1.7188 1.9171 +13% 0.9522 0.6619 1.1597 +27%

    32. Tests 4.SSS SELECTION 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product L3 averaging has been performed using ALL the overpasses, only the ASCENDING ones, and only the DESCENDING ones L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

    33. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps - All

    34. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps - Ascending Fresher when ice/land enters in the FOV Saltier when it exits

    35. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps - Descending Generally saltier Saltier when it exits Fresher when ice/land enters in the FOV

    36. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps – comparisons with Ext TB cal

    37. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending land-sea contamination a previous study

    38. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 statistics - All ALL PASSES ALL PASSES rms rms 0.2260 2.2565 2.2678 0.2958 1.4391 1.4692 0.5559 1.4457 1.5489 0.5278 0.5805 0.7846

    39. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 statistics - Ascending rms rms +32% +52% -0.0214 3.3183 3.3183 -0.3585 3.0150 3.0362 0.2175 1.5405 1.5557 = 0.1239 0.8506 0.8595 +9%

    40. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 statistics - Descending rms rms +24% +27% 0.3851 2.9766 3.0014 0.7824 1.8510 2.0096 0.9942 1.7178 1.9848 +22% 1.0820 0.9610 1.4472 +46%

    41. Tests 5.TB SELECTION 5 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 14th ISEA4H9 has been used Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” is analized OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product TB with a have been filtered out to almost reproduce the AF-FOV L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

    42. Tests – EAF vs. AF AF-FOV approx.

    43. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 maps - EAF

    44. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 maps - AF

    45. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 maps – AF minus EAF Descending negative Ascending positive

    46. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 statistics - EAF rms rms -0.1680 2.7191 2.7242 0.0068 1.8762 1.8762 0.4170 1.1453 1.2189 0.3608 0.6828 0.7722

    47. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 statistics – AF rms rms +3% +5% -0.0867 2.8017 2.8030 0.0674 1.9639 1.9650 0.5254 1.2677 1.3722 +11% 0.4797 0.7427 0.8841 +13%

    48. Tests 6.NEW FTR 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th and August, 20th to 29th are compared as produced by the DPGS: ISEA4H9 has been used Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” is analyzed OTT has been applied L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

    49. Tests – July vs. August L3 maps - July

    50. Tests – July vs. August L3 maps - August Generally fresher