Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
VALIDATING SATELLITE LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE PRODUCTS FOR GOES-R AND JPSS MISSIONS.pptx
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

VALIDATING SATELLITE LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE PRODUCTS FOR GOES-R AND JPSS MISSIONS.pptx

529
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
529
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Just listed major LST sources, not include microwave sensors, LEO sensors.GOES generation: SMS – GOES 1 (1975) to 3 1st - GOES 4 to 72nd – GOES 8 to 123rd – GOES 13 to 154th – GOES R, S, T, U
  • In situ data limitationDifferent spatial scales Different sampling rates and sample timing Sub-pixel cloud contamination Sub-pixel heterogeneity Limited samples of clear case
  • Issues: 1) different t and t0 resulting different Ts. 2) the ground homogeneity maybe location/time dependent 3) the up-scaling model 4) the uncertainty of up-scaling estimationSolutions: 1) develop or use proper random statistic model for heterogeneity and interpolation analysis 2) develop or use proper up-scaling model to perform point-to-area estimation
  • Why Tc – Tg is systematic error?
  • Should use my one (CRN sites are not used in the table, therefore not need to be shown)
  • Transcript

    • 1. 1
      Validating Satellite Land Surface Temperature Products for GOES-R and JPSS Missions
      Yunyue Yu, Mitchell Goldberg, Ivan Csiszar
      NOAA/NESDIS
      Center for Satellite Applications and Research
    • 2. 2
      Motivation-- LST validation needs
      LST Products Derived from Different Sensors for Decades
      POES
      NOAA AVHRR (TIROS-N to NOAA-19) since 1978
      ESA ATSR/AATSR since 1991
      EOS MODIS since 1999
      MetOp AVHRR since 2006
      GOES
      US GOES/Imagers since 1975
      Meteosat (MVIRI since 1995 and then) SEVIRI since 2004
      Future LST products
      LST Climate Data Record
    • 4. 3
      Motivation-- LST validation issues
      LST Validation Difficulties
      In situ data limitation
      Measurement difficulty
      Cloud contamination effect
      particularly the partial or thin cloudy pixels
      Spatial and temporal variations
      Spot vs pixel difference
      Sub-pixel heterogeneity
      Accurate match-up process (different sampling rates and sampling timing)
      Others
      i.e. angle effect
      Surface heterogeneity is shown in a 4km x 4km Google map (1km x 1km, in the center box) around the Bondville station area
    • 5. Approach-- Strategy
      • Using Existing Ground Observation Data
      • 6. Cost consideration
      • 7. Site representativeness and selection: characterization analysis
      • 8. Match-up Dataset Generation
      • 9. Stringent cloud filtering: additional measures
      • 10. Data pair quality control
      • 11. Site-to-pixel Model Development
      • 12. Synthetic pixel analysis using high resolution sensor data
      • 13. Proxy data testing
      • 14. Real satellite data evaluation
      • 15. Validation Methodology
      • 16. Direct comparisons
      • 17. Indirection comparisons
      4
    • 18. Approach
      T(x,y,t)
      T(x0,y0,t0)
      Synthetic pixel analysis using ASTER data— an integrated approach for
      site representativeness analysis and site-to-pixel model development
      • Quantitatively characterize the sub-pixel heterogeneity and decide whether a ground site is adequately representative for the satellite pixel. The sub-pixels may be generated from pixels of a higher-resolution satellite.
      • 19. For pixel that is relatively homogeneous, analyze statistical relationship of the ground-site sub-pixel with the surrounding sub-pixels: {T(x,y) } ~ T(x0,y0)
      • 20. Establish relationship between the objective pixel and its sub-pixels (i.e., up-scaling model), e.g., Tpixel = T(x,y) + DT (time dependent?)
      ASTER pixel
      The site pixel
      MODIS pixel
      The Synthetic pixel/sub-pixel model
      5
    • 21. ASTER scene (90m) pixel
      6
      Approach
      A Site Characterization Simulation Model – synthesizing VIIRS pixel using higher-resolution ASTER TIR pixels.
      • Each synthetic pixel has the target ground site enclosed, but the distance between the ground site and the center of synthetic pixel varies, which mimics the possible over-passing VIIRS swaths.
      • 22. Distance of every synthetic pixel center from the ground site is within the pixel size (~1Km).
      • 23. Different colors are used for the 9 synthetic pixels, and the center of each pixel is marked with a small numbered square of the same corresponding color.
      • 24. The numbers on the squares are the pixel IDs used in the relevant analysis.
      Colored squares:
      Ground site synthetic VIIRS pixels
    • 25. Approach
      7
      Quantification of the difference between the Synthetic Pixel and Ground Measurement, that is,
      Evaluation: and with
      the model:
      Note that:
      Sub-pixel heterogeneity
      Systematic bias between ASTER and ground measurements
      Tsat– satellite pixel LST
      Tg -- ground site LST
      Tc -- central sub-pixel LST
    • 26. Data Sets
      8
      Data Acquisition
      • Inventory preparation of clear-sky ASTER scenes passing over 23 ground sites (SURFRAD and CRN) during 2001-2007.
      • 27. Collection of the clear-sky ASTER data sets associated with six SURFRAD sites and two CRN sites.
      • 28. AST_04, AST_05, AST_08 and L1B (in total, about 2000 ASTER swath scenes).
      • 29. Collection of the six SURFRAD and the two CRN ground data.
      • 30. Collection of the two CRN ground data.
      • 31. Collection of MODIS LST product data (MOD11_L2).
      • 32. All the swaths passing over the SURFRAD sites in 2001
      • 33. All the swaths corresponding to the ASTER scenes during 2001-2007
      • 34. Collection of the narrow-band emissivity data sets
      • 35. UW-Madison Baseline Fit Emissivity Database
      • 36. North American ASTER Land Surface Emissivity Database (NAALSED)
      • 37. Collection of NCEP reanalysis TPW datasets
    • Data Sets
      Satellite LST: MODIS LST, ASTER, and GOES LST
      Ground LST: Derived from SURFRAD site measurements
      Candidate Ground Sites and Database
      Dataset Used
      • SURFRAD data
      • 38. ASTER Data
      • 39. Data period: 2001-2007
      ASTER data is courtesy by Shunlin Liang
      Table: Matched ASTER Data
      9
    • 40. 10
      Jul. 2011
      Ground Site Broadband Emissivity
      Regression based on the UW-Madison Baseline Fit Emissivity Database
      ( Seemann et al., 2008).
      Data Sets
      Regression of Broadband emissivity from well-developed narrowband emissivity database:
      UW-Madison baseline Fit Emissivity Database
      a=0.2122, b=0.3859,c=0.4029 (Wang, 2004)
    • 41. Processing
      General Components of Validation Processing
      Satellite Data
      Geolocation Match-up
      Satellite Data Reader
      Time Match-up
      Ground Data Reader
      Ground Data
      Match-up Datasets
      Satellite Cloud Mask
      Satellite LST Calculation/Extraction
      Ground Data Mask
      Ground LST Estimation/Extraction
      Manual Cloud Control
      Outputs
      (Plots, Tables, etc.)
      Direct Comparison
      Synthetic Analysis and Correction
      Indirect Comparison
      Statistical Analysis
      11
    • 42. Processing
      Sample Match-up Flow Chart
      Time
      Match-up
      (< 5 mins)
      Satellite
      Data
      Cloud Mask
      Geolocation
      Match-up
      Spatial
      Difference Test:
      BT -- 3X3 pix STDs,
      Visual -- 0.5 deg
      SURFRAD
      Data
      Manual
      Tuning
      Channel BT
      Difference Test:
      (Ts, T10mm), (T10mm, T3.9mm)
      (T10mm, T12mm)
      Matched
      Dataset
      Time Series
      Smoothness Check
      (if available):
      Upwelling, Downwelling
      Irradiances
      Additional cloud filter
      Note: this flow chart is specifically for GOES Imager
      Similar procedure is/will be applied for the ASTER and MODIS/VIIRS data
      12
    • 43. Processing
      13
      Data Processing/Analysis
      • Clear-sky cases analysis
      • 44. Cloud and clear-sky climatology analysis (for site selection)
      • 45. ASTER Clear-sky swath selection from the ASTER inventory from the Warehouse Inventory Search Tool
      • 46. Ground broadband emissivity regression analysis
      • 47. SURFRAD LST estimation from PIR measurements
      • 48. Spatial and temporal match-up among ground sites, ASTER scenes and MODIS scenes
      • 49. Geolocation mapping of ASTER pixels as the sub-pixels of a MODIS pixel
      • 50. Quality-control and enhanced cloud filtering
      • 51. Processing of ASTER LST QC information
      • 52. Processing of ASTER emissivity QC information
      • 53. Processing MODIS cloud masks
      • 54. Processing of MODIS LST QC information
      • 55. Surface observations
      • 56. Statistical testing
    • Processing
      14
      Data Processing/Analysis (con’t)
      • Site representativeness analysis and site-to-pixel difference characterization
      • 57. Semi-variance analysis
      • 58. Synthetic analysis
      • 59. Site-to-pixel model testing
      • 60. Testing with all the MODIS Terra LST swaths passing over SUFRAD sites in 2001
      • 61. Testing with the MODIS LST swaths corresponding with ASTER scenes during 2001-2007
      • 62. VIIRS LST case studies on NPP land LPEATE platform
      • 63. Development of VIIRS LST algorithm modules for flexible offline testing and algorithm improvement
      • 64. Visualization tools of the analysis and results disolay
    • Results
      Additional cloud filtering is need for obtaining high quality satellite-ground match-up dataset
      Left: ATSER cloud free dataset. Right: possible cloud contamination.
      Cloud
      15
    • 65. 16
      Results
      Comparison of the temperatures calculated from synthetic pixel average (top-right), center-pixel (bottom-left), and nearest pixel (bottom-right) with the ground site temperature. Note the different colors represent for the 9 different synthetic pixels shown previously.
      For this particular site the ground site location within the satellite pixel does not have significance impact to the validation process, simply because the land surface thermal emission at Desert Rock is fairly homogeneous.
      SURFRAD Station: Desert Rock
    • 66. 17
      Results
      Site=Desert Rock, NV
      Ts - Tc
      Tc-Ta
      Ts – Ta
      Case
      Mean
      STD
      STD`
      Mean
      STD
      Mean
      -1.81
      2.46
      0.69
      0.04
      2.13
      -1,78
      0
      0.60
      -0.01
      2.26
      -1.82
      1
      0.61
      0.08
      2.20
      -1.74
      2
      0.92
      0.20
      1.99
      -1.61
      3
      0.96
      0.06
      2.03
      -1.75
      4
      0.98
      -0.24
      2.18
      -2.05
      5
      0.80
      -0.34
      2.30
      -2.15
      6
      0.65
      -0.26
      2.40
      -2.07
      7
      0.60
      -0.16
      2.37
      -1.97
      8
      0.76
      -0.07
      2.21
      -1.88
      Average
      Sample statistical analysis result on the Desert Rock site.
      Impact of pixel location bias to the ground site
      The Ta and Ts difference is tested by comparing its spatial structure to the site geographic structure.
      It shows that such Ta and Ts difference matches the site geographic feature well, which implies that the synthetic pixel temperature calculation is reasonable.
      Ts: LST of SURFRAD site
      Ta: average LST over 13x13 ASTER pixels
      Tc: LST of ASTER pixel nearest to the site
    • 67. Jul. 2011
      18
      Results
      Site=Bondville, IL
      Ts - Tc
      Tc-Ta
      Ts – Ta
      Case
      Mean
      STD
      STD`
      Mean
      STD
      Mean
      -0.59
      2.01
      0.92
      -0.07
      2.04
      -0.66
      0
      1.04
      -0.14
      2.01
      -0.73
      1
      1.07
      -0.05
      2.05
      -0.64
      2
      1.27
      -0.05
      2.17
      -0.64
      3
      1.15
      -0.03
      2.10
      -0.68
      4
      1.10
      -0.09
      2.14
      -0.60
      5
      0.97
      -0.001
      2.12
      -0.62
      6
      0.95
      -0.03
      2.05
      -0.77
      7
      0.97
      -0.18
      2.02
      -0.77
      8
      1.05
      -0.09
      2.08
      -0.80
      Average
      Sample statistical analysis result on the Bondville site.
      Impact of pixel location bias to the ground site
    • 68. Jul. 2011
      19
      Results
      Sample statistical analysis result on the Boulder site.
      Ts - Tc
      Tc-Ta
      Ts – Ta
      Case
      Mean
      STD
      STD`
      Mean
      STD
      Mean
      -0.77
      2.60
      0.58
      -0.07
      2.62
      -0.84
      0
      0.85
      -0.38
      2.61
      -1.15
      1
      Site=Boulder, CO
      0.91
      -0.27
      2.30
      -1.03
      2
      0.84
      -0.14
      2.27
      -0.91
      3
      0.61
      -0.03
      2.54
      -0.80
      4
      0.61
      -0.10
      2.64
      -0.67
      5
      Impact of pixel location bias to the ground site
      0.69
      -0.00
      2.75
      -0.77
      6
      0.70
      -0.10
      2.80
      -0.87
      7
      0.70
      -0.25
      2.70
      -1.02
      8
      0.72
      -0.13
      2.58
      -0.90
      Average
    • 69. Results
      Sample scatter plots show the linear relationship between satellite LST and ground LST.
      Tsat = A Tg + B + e
    • 70. 21
      7/27/2011
      Results
      Site-to-Pixel Statistical Relationship
    • 71. 22
      Results
      Site-to-Pixel Statistical Relationship – MODIS Proxy
      • The standard deviation of the difference between real MODIS pixel LST and SURFRAD LST are consistent with the standard deviation of the difference between synthetic pixel and SURFRAD.
      • 72. The synthetic pixel LST is generally much warmer (about 1.5K) than SURFRAD LST, while MODIS LST is slightly cooler than SURFRAD LST.
      • 73. Implication: High resolution ASTER data be used for site representativeness analysis, but a further verification of ASTER LST quality seems essential for the parameter estimation of the site-to-pixel model (e.g., A,B,C) and the application of the model in real cases.
    • Results –Summary
      • Synthetic pixel analysis model is created for analyzing ground site temperature heterogeneous feature. ASTER data are used to generate synthetic VIIRS pixel data (LST) and compared to the SURFRAD site data
      • 74. LST of SURFRAD measurements may be used as good references for VIIRS/ABI LST cal/valif the measurements are of high-quality and the in-situ estimation of LST is accurate enough.
      • 75. Directional variations are small, so small geo-referencing (within 1Km) bias may not be an issue affecting VIIRS/ABI LST cal/val at the above SURFRAD sites.
      • 76. Application of the site-to-pixel model depends on the ASTER LST data quality.
      • 77. Directional variation of the potential sub-pixel heterogeneity is found to be consistent with the physical topographic features, even if it is small.
      • 78. The limited datasets doesn’t allow us to characterize the seasonal variation of heterogeneities, which is more desirable than a simple mean difference. More datasets are expected. And about 1K difference seems unavoidable in practice.
      23
    • 79. Future Plan
      • Analysis over time scales of interest, e.g., seasonal variation.
      • 80. Analysis over sites of different surface types
      • 81. Up/down-scaling models
      • 82. Emissivity uncertainties
      • 83. Test of the scaling model using real satellite data
      24