1 / 47

SUBGROUP REPORT Jeff Morisette [email protected], (301) 614-6676 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

CEOS Working Group on Cal/Val LAND PRODUCT. SUBGROUP REPORT Jeff Morisette [email protected], (301) 614-6676 GOFC/GOLD Global Geostationary Fire Monitoring. LPV outline. Review of subgroup’s status and goals Validation activities Conclusions. LPV outline.

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' SUBGROUP REPORT Jeff Morisette [email protected], (301) 614-6676' - moshe

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


Working Group on Cal/Val



Jeff Morisette

[email protected], (301) 614-6676

GOFC/GOLD Global Geostationary Fire Monitoring

Lpv outline
LPV outline

Review of subgroup’s status and goals

Validation activities


Lpv outline1
LPV outline

Review of subgroup’s status and goals

Validation activities


Land Product Validation Subgroup

  • Established in 2000

  • Followed Terrain-mapping subgroup as topic-specific subgroup(non-wavelength-specific)

  • Jeff Morisette (NASA) starting as chair in February 2003

  • Agreement from Fred Baret (“VALERI, INRA-CSE) to be “chair-elect”= potential chair in 2006)

Gofc gold and lpv



CEOS Plenary





User accuracyrequirements

IT and Regional

networks: local



Informed use of CEOS products

Product evaluation, feedback

Validation protocols

LPV: topical mtgs & product-specific intercomparisons

Why validate global land products

Why validate global land products

  • WGCV definition implies validation = “Estimating Uncertainty”

  • Good science and resource management require understanding of product accuracy/uncertainty

  • Explicit statements of uncertainty fosters an informed user community and improved use of data

  • International environmental protocols and agreements imply products may be independently evaluated and possibly challenged

  • As more, and similar, global products are produced by CEOS members (via such programs as “GEO”), inter-use will require characterization of each product’s uncertainty

Lpv mission statement objectives
LPV: mission statement & objectives

  • Mission

  • To foster quantitative validation of higher-level global land products derived from remote sensing data and relay results so they are relevant to users

  • Objectives

  • (a) To work with users to define uncertainty objectives

  • (b) To identify and support global test sites for both systematic and episodic measurements (WGCV / WGISS Test Facility)

  • (c) To identify opportunities for coordination and collaboration

  • (d) To develop consensus “best practice” protocols for data collection and description

  • (e) To develop procedures for validation, data exchange and management (with WGISS)

Big picture
Big Picture

LPV provides a validation service to the Integrated Global Observation Strategy’s Global Terrestrial Observation System.


  • Focus Products: Biophysical, Land Cover, & Fire

  • Working in conjunction with GOFC/GOLD’s regional networks

  • Need to integrate with TEMS & GT-Net

Current upcoming topical workshops
Current/Upcoming Topical workshops

  • Follow-up Land Cover/Change

    • aiming toward “best practices” document

    • Early 2004, Boston University, USA

  • Fire and Burn scar:

    • Global Geostationary Fire Monitoring ApplicationsA Joint GOFC/GOLD Fire and CEOS LVP WorkshopMarch 23-25, 2004, EUMETSAT, Darmstadt, Germany

    • (related to Action WGCV 20-8)

  • “Results” workshop for LAI-intercomparison

    • fruition of LAI-intercomparison

    • 16 August 2004, University of Montana, Missoula US

  • Surface Reflectance and Albedo/BRDF

    • ? in conjunction with next BSRN meeting

Five listservs established
Five listservs established

[email protected]

General information regarding LPV activity, both scientific and administrative

[email protected]

surface RADiation products, including surface reflectance/atmospheric correction, land surface temperature, albedo and BRDF

[email protected]

BIOphysical parameters, including vegetation indices, leaf area index, FPAR, and vegetation productivity

[email protected]

Land Cover and land cover change products

[email protected]

FIRE, burn scar, and fire emissions products

(related to action WGCV 20-11)

Ieee transaction on geoscience and remote sensing special issues
IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing special issues


Lay out the current suite of higher-level global land products and quantitatively establish their accuracy.

Provide a user’s perspective on the implications of a product’s accuracy to understand:

how accurate the product needs to be

why it is important to quantify the uncertainly

how close currently available data come to meeting those needs

Proposed tgars special issues
Proposed TGARS special issues issues

Open invitation

(suggestions or volunteers for reviews are also welcome)

Papers due October 2004

Anticipated publication date early 2006

Ultimate objective is to provide not “mandatory protocols” but an “acceptable standard”

Validation: issues

the process of assessing by independent means the quality of the data products derived from the system outputs

(LPV will operates under this definition, but also with the understanding that validation activities should:- consider user accuracy needs and- feedback to algorithm improvements.)

CEOS Definition

Modis validation hierarchy
MODIS validation “hierarchy” issues

  • Stage 1 Validation:  Product accuracy has been estimated using a small number of independent measurements obtained from selected locations and time periods and ground-truth/field program effort.

  • Stage 2 Validation: Product accuracy has been assessed over a widely distributed set of locations and time periods via several ground-truth and validation efforts.

  • Stage 3 Validation: Product accuracy has been assessed and the uncertainties in the product well established via independent measurements in a systematic and statistically robust way representing global conditions.

Biome map
Biome Map issues

Exhaustive and mutually exclusive global biome map

Close match to GOFC/GOLD regional networks

Published independently of LPVGurney et al. (2002) Towards robust regional estimates of CO2 sources and sinks using atmospheric transport models. Nature, 415, 626-630, 7 Feb. 2002.

Accuracy statements
Accuracy statements issues

  • Should be “user-oriented” and supported with peer-review literature

  • Augment validation “stage hierarchy”

  • Standardize/summarize information for each product

  • MODIS land team plans to update CEOS information for MODIS land products

Example modis accuracy statements
Example: MODIS accuracy statements issues


Validation home page

…page for each product

Link to accuracy statement

for each product

  • Overall accuracy statement

  • Link to QA information

  • List of support material

…pages for supporting materials

  • Title, author, abstract

  • Figures/captions

  • Tables/captions

Lpv outline2
LPV outline issues

Review of subgroup’s status and goals

Validation activities


Lpv validation examples
LPV Validation examples issues

  • CEOS “Core Sites”

  • Leaf Area Index “Intercomparison”

  • Albedo/BRDF

  • Active Fire/Burnt Area

  • Opportunities for Geostationary

Ceos core sites goals
CEOS “Core Sites” goals issues

  • Provide a focus for ongoing satellite, aircraft, and ground data collection for validation of CEOS member satellite/sensor products

  • Provide scientists with sets of readily accessible in-situ and CEOS member instrument data for algorithm validation and improvement

  • Build on infrastructure of existing scientific networks and validation sites

  • Realize international cost-sharing opportunities

Ceos core sites implementation
CEOS “Core Sites” implementation issues

  • Utilize existing networks of validation sites for joint/multiple validation of CEOS member global land product

    • EOS Land Validation Core Sites

    • VALERI Network of sites

    • GTOS “Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring Sites”

    • CEOP/NASDA, CSIRO, GT-net, ILTERS sites

  • Provide easy access to high resolution data and subsets of global land products from CEOS member sensors

  • Conducted as a joint project with the CEOS Working Group on Information Systems and Services

Ceos core sites phase 1
CEOS “Core Sites”: Phase 1 issues

  • Simple, Web-Based Interface to CEOS Core Sites

  • Allow Users to Specify Conversion Parameters

  • Provide Access to EO and in-situ Data

  • Begin With MODIS, SPOT Veg, & Landsat

  • Allow Reprojecting

  • Allow Reformatting into GeoTIFF

Core Test Sites Data Distribution issues


WGISS Test Facility

MODIS Subsets,



SeaWiFS Subsets





Subsetting, Reprojection,

Formatting, QC

Data Catalog

Limited Storage

Data Tools


In Situ Data

(PIs; ORNL) issues

User Code = calval99

Password = wgiss03

Feedback welcome

Jeff Morisette ([email protected]) John Dwyer ([email protected])

Ndvi time series for harvard forest lter
NDVI time series for Harvard Forest LTER issues

Year: close up 2000 - 2004

Ndvi time series for harvard forest lter1
NDVI time series for Harvard Forest LTER issues

Year: close up 2000 - 2004

Ndvi time series for mongu zambia
NDVI time series for Mongu, Zambia issues

Year: close up 2000 - 2004

Difference analysis
“Difference” analysis issues

NDVI Difference: SPOT - AVHRR

Autocorrelation function

Lag (in months)

Years (1998 – 2004)

Average difference is 0.034

Significant ½ and 1 year lags

Lpv inter comparison
LPV Inter-comparison issues

Site contacts provide “Vital Statistics”

LPV provides subsets of global LAI product(s)

LPV to create link to the site from the LAI-intercomparison page

Field campaign(s):

LPV acquires and posts relevant high-res multispectral imagery

Site contacts collect field data and register these in the Mercury system

Site contacts provide Internet link to locally maintained high-resolution LAI surface, with proper documentation on how the surface was derived

LPV posts link to LAI-surface on LAI-intercomparison page

Data are shared among fellow “LAI-intercomparison” participants for research comparing both validation results and methods

Sites added to this international activity are those that help create a globally representative sample - across biomes and continents


have a strong need or intention to utilize global, coarse resolution, LAI products.

Albedo intercomparison
Albedo “Intercomparison” issues

  • Albedo intercomparison is gaining momentum

  • Discussed at meeting in Fall ’02

  • Consider are of overlap between MSG and MODIS

  • Utilize Baseline Surface Radiation Network sites with Albedometers

  • MODIS Albedo and Aerosol products subset and available through Oak Ridge National Lab

  • Concept will be brought to BSRN at their July meeting (interaction between Crystal Schaaf, Atsumu Ohmura, and Andreas Roesch)

  • “Kick off” will be a joint Working on Cal/Val meeting / Albedo Validation Campaign in Argintina, early 2005

The ceos intercomparison concept
The CEOS “Intercomparison” concept issues

  • LAI will serve as pilot study

    (August workshop and article in special issue)

  • Albedo intercomparison is gaining momentum

  • Burnt area intercomparison has strong potential

    • GBA2000 and MODIS in Africa

Intercomparison general timeline
“Intercomparison” General Timeline issues

Topical meeting to establish data requirements

Decide on Sites

Develop data sharing infrastructure

Field Campaigns & individual product analysis

Synthesis of results

LAI Albedo Burnt Area

Modis burnt area validation
MODIS burnt area validation issues

  • Courtesy of David Roy et al., UMd

  • Botswana, Okavango Delta, 2001

  • Landsat ETM+ path 175 row 073

  • Cloud-free scenes acquired 32 days apart:

    • September 4th

    • October 6th

Landsat ETM+ issues

Sept. 4th

Landsat ETM+ issues

Oct. 6th

Yellow vectors = ETM+ interpreted burned areas occurring between the two ETM+ acquisitions

MODIS 500m issues



Sept. 4


Oct. 6

White vectors = ETM+ interpreted burned areas occurring between the two ETM+ acquisitions

Burnt Area: MODIS vs ETM+ issues

Each point illustrates the proportion of a 5.0*5.0 km cell mapped as burned

GOFC/GOLD Fire implementation team: issuesActive Fire Validation with ASTER

Modis fire detection inpe and umd
MODIS fire detection: INPE and UMd issues

…probably not an issue of which is best, but rather how to combine.

… GOES ABBA fire could be included

ACRE 29 Aug 2003


Modis fire detection brazil february 2004
MODIS fire detection: Brazil February 2004 issues

X = 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3

Y = 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1

Average pixel size – indication that non-coincident fire are further from NADIR

View angle dependency
View Angle dependency issues

NOAA-12 hot spot detection for Tocantins State – Brazil July-August 2001. (x axis = date dd/m)

Curve fitting for regional summaries
Curve fitting for regional summaries issues

Fit curve to fire counts filter for extent of ASTER viewing angle. Then take area under the curve to represent fire counts

- and fit curve with consideration of “error bars” estimated for near-nadir counts resulting from the ASTER analysis.

Daily fire counts
Daily Fire counts issues

If we validate using sun-synchronous, what can we say about the accuracy of a “diurnal curve” – example: adjusting diurnal signal to four (or more) points from sun synchronous data, can we estimate the accuracy of “non-linearitites” between sun-syn. observations

Number of Hot spots

Time of Day

Lpv outline3
LPV outline issues

Review of subgroup’s status and goals

Validation activities


Conclusion issues

LPV is available to coordinate validation activities

Burnt area “intercomparison” seems attractive

Validation of Geostationary products is certainly possible, but somewhat limited