FR2.L10.2: VALIDATION OF SMOS: SOME FIRST RESULTS

502 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
502
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Remember that the actual L1C 3dB footprints are ellipses within those circles.
  • Y13
  • useful for identifying the presence or absence of dew, and verifying the assumptions that i) effective temperature has not changed throughout the course of the aircraft measurements; ii) vegetation and soil temperature are in equilibrium; and iii) soil moisture has not changed significantly during ground sampling
  • Add a screen shot of the AACES website with web address (make sure we get password protection working before I arrive please). I would also like to include here YeNan’s KML file so that I can navigate around it to demonstrate the data we collected (roughness, veg, ASD, stations, HDAS etc), even if only for 1 or two patches completed at this stage …
  • Include a slide here with the campaign total rainfall. Derek Bacon was working on providing us that data so check with him where it is at now. Also include a couple of time series soil moisture plots from OzNet stations
  • We probably need to add a couple of schematics to illustrate what we mean here
  • We probably need to add a couple of schematics to illustrate what we mean here
  • Dry and wet example The “blotches” are not RFI, they are irrigation areas … Striping is less than 2 kelvin
  • So under European conditions will typically need to cover more than 40% of pixel
  • Add some examples of smos L1c and L2a data, plus results of our “validation” H-pol
  • Error due to Faraday rotation < 0.2K for any morning overpass so far. JPWigneron & YH Kerr are not concerned about angular effect within the footprint. JPWi has studied it on Portos and found it to be negligible, also for our set up Correction for atmospheric effects is set to 3.8K (flight altitude to ToA). Total of surface to ToA is ~4.8K difference between surface and aircraft ~1K. Used approach of Pellarin et al. (also included in LMEB) to calculate both (surface to ToA & aircraft to ToA) and subtracted the difference from SMOS Tb.
  • Use of 21km radius circles around SMOS points. Given the lack of data throughout the L2, only 2 circles in the present case could be included.
  • I probably wont show this
  • FR2.L10.2: VALIDATION OF SMOS: SOME FIRST RESULTS

    1. 1. Validation of SMOS: Some first results <ul><li>Jeffrey Walker </li></ul><ul><li>Department of Civil Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Sandy Peischl, Mahdi Allahmoradi, Christoph Rüdiger, Dongryeol Ryu, Nan Ye, Damian Barrett, Robert Gurney, Yann Kerr, Ed Kim, John Le Marshall </li></ul>
    2. 3. The Murrumbidgee catchment
    3. 4. Catchment characteristics
    4. 5. Permanent monitoring stations
    5. 6. Moisture and rainfall climatology
    6. 7. Ground sampling strategy
    7. 8. Farm surface conditions
    8. 9. An airborne SMOS/MODIS simulator 6 x Skye VIS/NIR/SWIR Spectrometers 6 x Everest Thermal IR’s L-band Radiometer MODIS SMOS TIR + Spectral
    9. 10. AACES field campaigns: supplementary data
    10. 11. AACES field campaigns: validation data
    11. 12. www.moisturemap.monash.edu.au/AACES
    12. 14. Rainfall Canberra Gundagai 140mm 115mm Hay 80mm
    13. 15. PLMR: 20 January – 20 February 2010
    14. 16. Observations <ul><li>General Overview </li></ul>dry – little vegetation some rain & dry down – little vegetation 150+mm rain – forest (south) and other veg Murrumbidgee River Wagga Wagga Canberra Mt Kosciuszko National Park and State Forest H-pol V-pol
    15. 17. Research questions <ul><li>How much of a SMOS pixel needs to be measured to get a reliable brightness temperature average? </li></ul><ul><li>How well do the SMOS L1c and L2 brightness temperatures agree with total coverage aircraft data? </li></ul><ul><li>How accurate is the SMOS L2 soil moisture product? </li></ul><ul><li>How well can we downscale SMOS data? </li></ul><ul><li>How well do our LSMs predict soil moisture variability at 1km resolution? </li></ul><ul><li>Can SMOS improve LSM prediction of soil moisture by data assimilation? </li></ul>
    16. 18. Research questions <ul><li>How much of a SMOS pixel needs to be measured to get a reliable brightness temperature average? </li></ul><ul><li>How well do the SMOS L1c and L2 brightness temperatures agree with total coverage aircraft data? </li></ul><ul><li>How accurate is the SMOS L2 soil moisture product? </li></ul><ul><li>How well can we downscale SMOS data? </li></ul><ul><li>How well do our LSMs predict soil moisture variability at 1km resolution? </li></ul><ul><li>Can SMOS improve LSM prediction of soil moisture by data assimilation? </li></ul>
    17. 19. Fractional coverage required? 4K fraction of total pixel area SMOS 3dB pixel Transect 1 0
    18. 20. Fractional coverage required?
    19. 22. Fractional coverage required?
    20. 23. SMOS agreement with aircraft data? H polarisation
    21. 24. Level 1c evaluation: patch 9 H Polarisation V Polarisation
    22. 25. Level 2 Tb evaluation: patch 3 H Polarisation V Polarisation
    23. 26. Conclusions <ul><li>Field campaigns for the validation of SMOS should typically aim to cover more than 50% of the SMOS pixel </li></ul><ul><li>Preliminary results show that SMOS brightness temperatures agree with aircraft data within spec for v-pol but need improvement in h-pol </li></ul><ul><li>Preliminary results show that SMOS L2 processing seems ok for the two pixels assessed </li></ul><ul><li>We are planning another campaign for Sept; you are welcome to participate </li></ul>
    24. 27. Acknowledgments <ul><li>3 participants each: CESBIO, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam </li></ul><ul><li>2 participants each: Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Institute of Agrophysics Lublin, </li></ul><ul><li>1 participant each: Polish Institute of Technology and Life Science, University of Hamburg/Max-Planck-Institute, Technical University of Denmark </li></ul><ul><li>DECC, CSIRO (instrument loan and field assistance) </li></ul><ul><li>ESA (part financial support of European participants) </li></ul><ul><li>Yanco Agricultural Institute (access to lab facilities and accommodation) </li></ul><ul><li>All farmers allowing access to their properties </li></ul>
    25. 28. Analysis <ul><li>Transects vs spatial coverage 2 </li></ul>

    ×