Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (218)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = scatterometer

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 10112 KiB  
Article
Typhoon Storm Surge Simulation Study Based on Reconstructed ERA5 Wind Fields—A Case Study of Typhoon “Muifa”, the 12th Typhoon of 2022
by Xu Zhang, Changsheng Zuo, Zhizu Wang, Chengchen Tao, Yaoyao Han and Juncheng Zuo
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(11), 2099; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12112099 - 19 Nov 2024
Viewed by 491
Abstract
A storm surge, classified as an extreme natural disaster, refers to unusual sea level fluctuations induced by severe atmospheric disturbances such as typhoons. Existing reanalysis data, such as ERA5, significantly underestimates the location and maximum wind speed of typhoons. Therefore, this study initially [...] Read more.
A storm surge, classified as an extreme natural disaster, refers to unusual sea level fluctuations induced by severe atmospheric disturbances such as typhoons. Existing reanalysis data, such as ERA5, significantly underestimates the location and maximum wind speed of typhoons. Therefore, this study initially assesses the accuracy of tropical cyclone positions and peak wind speeds in the ERA5 reanalysis dataset. These results are compared against tropical cyclone parameters from the IBTrACS (International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship). The position deviation of tropical cyclones in ERA5 is mainly within the range of 10 to 60 km. While the correlation of maximum wind speed is significant, there is still considerable underestimation. A wind field reconstruction model, incorporating tropical cyclone characteristics and a distance correction factor, was employed. This model considers the effects of the surrounding environment during the movement of the tropical cyclone by introducing a decay coefficient. The reconstructed wind field significantly improved the representation of the typhoon eyewall and high-wind-speed regions, showing a closer match with wind speeds observed by the HY-2B scatterometer. Through simulations using the FVCOM (Finite Volume Community Ocean Model) storm surge model, the reconstructed wind field demonstrated higher accuracy in reproducing water level changes at Tanxu, Gaoqiao, and Zhangjiabang stations. During the typhoon’s landfall in Shanghai, the area with the greatest water level increase was primarily located in the coastal waters of Pudong New Area, Shanghai, where the highest total water level reached 5.2 m and the storm surge reached 4 m. The methods and results of this study provide robust technical support and a valuable reference for further storm surge forecasting, marine disaster risk assessment, and coastal disaster prevention and mitigation efforts. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Oceanography)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Research framework flowchart. The extraction and evaluation of the ERA5 dataset (<b>top left</b>), the validation of tropical cyclones and wind field reconstruction (<b>bottom left</b>), the reconstruction of the tropical cyclone wind field (<b>top right</b>), and the development of the storm surge model (<b>bottom right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Gridded bathymetric map of the sea area near Shanghai.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Track map of typhoon “Muifa”—the red line represents the typhoon track, and the colored circles represents the typhoon center pressure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Histogram of typhoon center position deviations between ERA5 and IBTrACS for 21 western Pacific tropical cyclones (2021–2022). (<b>b</b>) scatter plot of maximum wind speeds comparison between ERA5 and IBTrACS for 21 western Pacific tropical cyclones (2021–2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>ERA5 typhoon wind speed distribution. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the ERA5 typhoon wind speed distribution at 06:00, 08:00, 10:00, 12:00, 14:00, and 16:00 on 14 September 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Reconstruction of tropical cyclone wind speed distribution in ERA5 data using a wind field reconstruction model based on tropical cyclone characteristics and distance parameters. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the reconstructed typhoon wind speed distribution at 06:00, 08:00, 10:00, 12:00, 14:00, and 16:00 on 14 September 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Wind speed difference distribution between the reconstructed typhoon and the ERA5 typhoon. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the wind speed difference distribution at 06:00, 08:00, 10:00, 12:00, 14:00, and 16:00 on 14 September 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Comparison between wind speeds from HY-2B satellite scatterometer and ERA5 wind speeds; (<b>b</b>) comparison between wind speeds from HY-2B satellite scatterometer and reconstructed wind speeds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Error analysis of the reconstructed wind field and ERA5 wind field compared with HY-2B satellite scatterometer wind speeds. (<b>a</b>) Histogram of RMSE comparing the reconstructed wind field and ERA5 wind field against HY-2B satellite scatterometer wind speeds. (<b>b</b>) MAE comparison of the reconstructed and ERA5 wind fields with HY-2B scatterometer wind speeds. (<b>c</b>) PCC comparison between the reconstructed wind field, ERA5 wind field, and HY-2B scatterometer wind speeds. (<b>d</b>) MAESS for the reconstructed wind field. Red represents reconstructed wind speeds, and blue represents ERA5 wind speeds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The red dots represent Gaoqiao Station, Zhangjiabang Station, and Tanhuxu Station, which are used for water level validation. The blue dots indicate the geographical locations within the study area, including Pudong, Fengxian, Jinshan, and Chongming Island. Additionally, the map highlights the Hangzhou Bay and Yangtze River estuary regions, with all geographical information referenced in the article clearly depicted in the figure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Validation of simulated water levels by FVCOM from 17:00 UTC on 10 September to 17:00 UTC on 15 September 2022, at Tanhu Station, Gaoqiao Station, and Zhangjiabang Station. The red dots represent the simulated water levels, and the blue line represents the observed water levels at the stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Storm surge water levels simulated by FVCOM driven by the reconstructed wind field. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the water levels from 12:00 to 17:00 on 14 September 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Driven by the ERA5 wind field, the storm surge water level is simulated by FVCOM. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the water levels from 12:00 to 17:00 on 14 September 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Storm surge increases simulated by FVCOM, driven by the reconstructed wind field. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the distributions of storm surge increase at 12:00, 13:00, 14:00, 15:00, 16:00, and 17:00 on 14 September 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Water level differences at three tide gauge stations simulated by FVCOM under the forcing of reconstructed wind field and ERA5 wind field from 12:00 to 17:00 UTC on 14 September 2022. The blue line indicates the water level difference at Tanhu Station, the green line shows the water level difference at Gaoqiao Station, and the red line depicts the water level difference at Zhangjiabang Station.</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 7418 KiB  
Article
Assessment of CCMP in Capturing High Winds with Respect to Individual Satellite Datasets
by Pingping Rong and Hui Su
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(22), 4215; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224215 - 12 Nov 2024
Viewed by 430
Abstract
High-wind structures were identified in the Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) ocean wind vector reanalysis for comparison with winds measured by satellite radiometers, scatterometers, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) instruments from February to October 2023. The comparison aims to evaluate bias, uncertainty, and spatial correlations [...] Read more.
High-wind structures were identified in the Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) ocean wind vector reanalysis for comparison with winds measured by satellite radiometers, scatterometers, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) instruments from February to October 2023. The comparison aims to evaluate bias, uncertainty, and spatial correlations with the goal of enhancing the accuracy of ocean wind datasets during tropical cyclones (TCs). In 10° longitude × 10° latitude blocks, each containing a TC, Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) and Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) winds are 6.5 and 4.8% higher than CCMP, while Advanced Scatterometer (ASCATB) is 0.8% lower. For extratropical cyclones, AMSR2 and SMAP also show stronger winds with a 5% difference, and ASCATB is about 0.3% weaker compared to CCMP. The comparison between SAR and CCMP for TC winds, sampled at the locations and time frames of SAR tiles, indicates that SAR winds around TCs are about 9% higher than CCMP winds. Using empirically defined TC structural indices, we find that the TCs observed by CCMP are shifted in locations and lack a compact core region. A Random Forest (RF) regressor was applied to TCs in CCMP with corresponding SAR observations, nearly correcting the full magnitude of low bias in CCMP statistically, with a 15 m/s correction in the core region. The hierarchy of importance among the predictors is as follows: CCMP wind speed (62%), distance of SAR pixels to the eye region (21%) and eye center (7%), and distance of CCMP pixels to the eye region (5%) and eye center (5%). Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Demonstration of local time (LT) coverages for SMAP (<b>a</b>), ASCATB (<b>b</b>), and ASMR2 (<b>c</b>) on 1 September 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) Demonstration of local time (LT) coverages for CYGNSS at the indicated UT time plus or minus 0.75 hours (as shown in each title), on 1 September 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Each pair of global hourly (4 UT hours per day from February to October 2023) pixel-by-pixel (0.25° × 0.25°) ocean wind speed maps are compared between CCMP and AMSR2, SMAP, ASCAT2, or CYGNSS, and then statistical moments of all such pairs are shown in histograms, represented by different colors. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Histograms of the mean, standard deviation (STD), and standard error of the mean (SEM) of the percent differences. (<b>d</b>) Histograms of spatial correlation coefficients of these hourly maps. Note that in the legend, the median and standard deviation describe the current histogram’s median and spread.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>CCMP is linearly interpolated from the 4 UTs onto 0.5-hourly intervals, and same statistical moments of percent differences between CCMP and SMAP are calculated to compare with the results based on the 4 UTs per day. The maxima of the red histograms are adjusted (8–10 times) to match the blue curves. The y-axis numbers correspond to the blue histogram. The (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) resemble those in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) A global map of CCMP for a selected day to demonstrate the distribution of high-wind structures. Both Saola and Haikui (within the white rectangle) are notable, and a magnified regional map is shown in (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>, except that the individual cases are 10° Lon × 10° Lat blocks identified as containing high-wind structures (i.e., TCs) in the low-latitude region between 35°S and 35°N. CYGNSS is not included because, based on our criteria, no high-wind features were identified. The (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) resemble those in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>AMSR2 maps (<b>top</b>) and CCMP maps (<b>bottom</b>) at coincidences for the five selected high spatial correlation cases, based on the results in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a>, except for SMAP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a>, except for ASCATB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>, except for the mid-high latitude region south of 35°S or north of 35°N. The (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) resemble those in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>AMSR2 maps (<b>top</b>) and CCMP maps (<b>bottom</b>) at coincidences for the five selected high spatial correlation cases in the mid-high latitude region, based on the results in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f010" class="html-fig">Figure 10</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f011" class="html-fig">Figure 11</a>, except for SMAP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f011" class="html-fig">Figure 11</a>, except for ASCATB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Histograms of the statistics for the SAR and CCMP pixel-by-pixel ocean wind speed comparisons over individual tiles. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) The histograms of tile-wise means, STDs, and SEMs of the pixel-by-pixel percent differences. (<b>c</b>) Spatial correlations of CCMP and SAR ocean wind speed over individual SAR tiles. CCMP values are sampled over the SAR tiles, and the SAR data are resampled onto the CCMP’s grid.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>, except with a block size of 5° × 5°, to compare with <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f014" class="html-fig">Figure 14</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Selected SAR (<b>top</b>) and CCMP (<b>bottom</b>) TC maps at coincidences with spatial correlations greater than 0.9.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Demonstration of the TC eye center and eye region identification routines. The black crosses are filled into the detected eye-region size, and the red circle marks the eye center position, which is generally the pixel that possesses the lowest ocean wind speed. (<b>a</b>) and (<b>b</b>) here correspond to (d) and (i) in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f016" class="html-fig">Figure 16</a>, except that they are magnified.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>e</b>) SAR and CCMP TC equivalent radii for different ocean wind speed levels (2.0 m/s intervals) for the five pairs of maps shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04215-f016" class="html-fig">Figure 16</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>TC structure comparisons between SAR and CCMP, via histograms of differences in TC eye-center locations (<b>a</b>), eye-region sizes (<b>b</b>), equivalent radii (<b>c</b>), and S–N and W–E asymmetries (<b>d</b>), using all coincident pairs throughout February–October 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>The performance levels of the RF model described by the statistical moments of the scatter plots. (<b>a</b>) Statistical moments when the model is applied to the training set (which are the 75% of ocean wind speed values for the selected set of TCs for model training). (<b>b</b>) The same statistics for the remaining 25% of the wind speed values for the same set of TCs. (<b>c</b>) The same statistics, except for the result from applying the model to a blind TC set. The ty1n2 in the title refers to the case when all predictors in Table 2 are used for the RF model training.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Histograms of the statistics when the RF model is applied to the individual TC tiles in the blind set. In each panel, the comparison between different curves illustrates the improvement in the predicted ocean wind speed maps relative to the CCMP maps, assuming that the SAR maps are considered the true states, in terms of accuracy (<b>a</b>), bias (<b>b</b>), correlation coefficient (<b>c</b>), and STD of the differences (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Three selected ocean wind speed tiles (in rows 1st–3rd) are used to demonstrate the performance of the ty1, ty2, and ty1n2 (3rd–5th columns) relative to SAR maps (1st column) and the CCMP maps (2nd column).</p>
Full article ">
31 pages, 19050 KiB  
Article
An Ensemble Machine Learning Approach for Sea Ice Monitoring Using CFOSAT/SCAT Data
by Yanping Luo, Yang Liu, Chuanyang Huang and Fangcheng Han
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(17), 3148; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16173148 - 26 Aug 2024
Viewed by 851
Abstract
Sea ice is a crucial component of the global climate system. The China–French Ocean Satellite Scatterometer (CFOSAT/SCAT, CSCAT) employs an innovative rotating fan beam system. This study applied principal component analysis (PCA) to extract classification features and developed an ensemble machine learning approach [...] Read more.
Sea ice is a crucial component of the global climate system. The China–French Ocean Satellite Scatterometer (CFOSAT/SCAT, CSCAT) employs an innovative rotating fan beam system. This study applied principal component analysis (PCA) to extract classification features and developed an ensemble machine learning approach for sea ice detection. PCA identified key features from CSCAT’s backscatter information, representing outer and sweet swath observations. The ensemble model’s performances (OA and Kappa) for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres were 0.930, 0.899, and 0.844, 0.747, respectively. CSCAT achieved an accuracy of over 0.9 for close ice and open water but less than 0.3 for open ice, with misclassification of open ice as closed ice. The sea ice extent discrepancy between CSCAT and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) was −0.06 ± 0.36 million km2 in the Northern Hemisphere and −0.03 ± 0.48 million km2 in the Southern Hemisphere. CSCAT’s sea ice closely matched synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery, indicating effective sea ice and open water differentiation. CSCAT accurately distinguished sea ice from open water but struggled with open ice classification, with misclassifications in the Arctic’s Greenland Sea and Hudson Bay, and the Antarctic’s sea ice–water boundary. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Satellite Remote Sensing for Ocean and Coastal Environment Monitoring)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Observation geometry of CSCAT adapted from Zhang et al. [<a href="#B42-remotesensing-16-03148" class="html-bibr">42</a>]. (<b>b</b>) Incidence and azimuth angles versus the cross-track wind vector cell (WVC) number for a row at a latitude of ~43°S from orbit observed on 1 January 2019 at 07:56:26, showcasing WVC views in color and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> using symbolic circles and forks, respectively. (<b>c</b>) The average number of views at WVC across the swath.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Workflow of this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Location map over (<b>a</b>) the Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) the Southern Hemisphere for the regions (marked in yellow colors) used in sample selection overlaid on the CAFF Boundary [<a href="#B58-remotesensing-16-03148" class="html-bibr">58</a>], Antarctic Circumpolar Current (<a href="https://data.aad.gov.au/dataset/4892/download" target="_blank">https://data.aad.gov.au/dataset/4892/download</a>, accessed on 20 March 2023) and sea ice median extent [<a href="#B59-remotesensing-16-03148" class="html-bibr">59</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Model structure of the soft voting ensemble learning and training process.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Pearson’s correlation coefficients in the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere and related principal component analysis (PCA) bioplots of CSCAT backscatter observations over the (<b>c</b>) Northern and (<b>d</b>) Southern Hemispheres on 10 January 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spatial distribution of the first four (out of eight) principal components of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> polarization in the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere on 10 January 2019, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Time series of cumulative variance of the eigenvalues for principal components in the (<b>a</b>) Northern and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemispheres between 2019 and 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Time series of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>P</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mn>1</mn> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> with different period lengths in the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere for close ice, open ice, and open water.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Feature importance for single models on 10 January 2019 in the Northern Hemisphere (<b>left</b>) and the Southern Hemisphere (<b>right</b>). (<b>b</b>) Statistical results of 10-fold cross-validation F1 scores for different machine learning models from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022. (<b>c</b>) Time series of 10-fold cross-validation F1 scores for different machine learning models from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The time series of the evaluation parameters for (1) overall, (2) close ice, (3) open ice, and (4) open water in the sea ice monitoring ensemble training model in the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Daily error analysis for (1) close ice, (2) open ice, and (3) open water in the sea ice monitoring ensemble training model in the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Sea ice detection in the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere on 10 December 2019 and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere on 10 June 2019 derived from the Dt, Gnb, Knn, Log, Rfc, and ensemble models, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Daily sea ice extent from 2019 to 2022 in the (<b>a1</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>a2</b>) Southern Hemisphere for CSCAT, OSISAF (30% SIC), and NSIDC (30% SIC). Daily sea ice extent difference from 2019 to 2022 in the (<b>b1</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b2</b>) Southern Hemisphere for CSCAT vs. NSIDC and OSISAF vs. NSIDC. Monthly sea ice extent from 2019 to 2022 over the (<b>c1</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>c2</b>) Southern Hemisphere for CSCAT, OSISAF (30% SIC), and NSIDC (30% SIC). Scatter plot of sea ice extent between CSCAT and NSIDC over the (<b>d1</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>d2</b>) Southern Hemisphere. The pairs are colored by month, and the blue line represents a trend line fitted to the data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Sea ice mapping in the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere on 18 June 2019 and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere on 18 June 2019 derived from CSCAT, ASCAT, NSIDC sea ice edge (SIE), and NSIDC sea ice concentration (SIC), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Daily consistency compared to NSIDC for (1) close ice, (2) open ice, and (3) open water over the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Monthly mode statistics for CSCAT over the (<b>a</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>b</b>) Southern Hemisphere and for ASCAT over the (<b>c</b>) Northern Hemisphere and (<b>d</b>) Southern Hemisphere, showing sea ice cover differences compared to NSIDC.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Comparative analysis of sea ice detection and high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. Comparison between CSCAT-derived sea ice detection results and Sentinel-1 SAR images in the Northern Hemisphere taken on (<b>a</b>) 18 June 2019 and (<b>b</b>) 8 March 2019 and in the Southern Hemisphere on (<b>c</b>) 19 June 2019. The thick red line represents the CSCAT-derived sea ice detection results.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 16284 KiB  
Article
NRCS Recalibration and Wind Speed Retrieval for SWOT KaRIn Radar Data
by Lin Ren, Xiao Dong, Limin Cui, Jingsong Yang, Yi Zhang, Peng Chen, Gang Zheng and Lizhang Zhou
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(16), 3103; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16163103 - 22 Aug 2024
Viewed by 573
Abstract
In this study, wind speed sensitivity and calibration bias were first determined for Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite Ka-band Radar Interferometer (KaRIn) Normalized Radar Backscatter Cross Section (NRCS) data at VV and HH polarizations. Here, the calibration bias was estimated by [...] Read more.
In this study, wind speed sensitivity and calibration bias were first determined for Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite Ka-band Radar Interferometer (KaRIn) Normalized Radar Backscatter Cross Section (NRCS) data at VV and HH polarizations. Here, the calibration bias was estimated by comparing the KaRIn NRCS with collocated simulations from a model developed using Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) data. To recalibrate the bias, the correlation coefficient between the KaRIn data and the simulations was estimated, and the data with the corresponding top 10% correlation coefficients were used to estimate the recalibration coefficients. After recalibration, a Ka-band NRCS model was developed from the KaRIn data to retrieve ocean surface wind speeds. Finally, wind speed retrievals were evaluated using the collocated European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) reanalysis winds, Haiyang-2C scatterometer (HY2C-SCAT) winds and National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) and Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) buoy winds. Evaluation results show that the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) at both polarizations is less than 1.52 m/s, 1.34 m/s and 1.57 m/s, respectively, when compared to ECMWF, HY2C-SCAT and buoy collocated winds. Moreover, both the bias and RMSE were constant with the incidence angles and polarizations. This indicates that the winds from the SWOT KaRIn data are capable of correcting the sea state bias for sea surface height products. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location map for SWOT KaRIn data and collocated HY2C-SCAT, NDBC buoy and TAO buoy wind data. Here, the red points indicate positions of collocations for KaRIn and HY2C-SCAT data. The green plus signs indicate the NDBC buoy positions. The blue multiple signs indicate the TAO buoy positions. The period for KaRIn data is from 6 September 2023 to 21 November 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Data distribution of ECMWF data for (<b>a</b>) wind speed and (<b>b</b>) sea surface temperature data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>KaRIn NRCS trends with the wind speeds from ECMWF at (<b>a</b>) VV polarization and (<b>b</b>) HH polarization. Here, the gold line indicates the fitting line for KaRIn NRCS observations, while the red line indicates the model line. The incidence angle is 2.5° and the collocated sea surface temperature is 15 °C.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>KaRIn NRCS trends with the wind speeds from ECMWF at different sea surface temperatures of (<b>a</b>) 8 °C, (<b>b</b>) 15 °C, (<b>c</b>) 23 °C and (<b>d</b>) 30 °C. The incidence angle is 2.5°.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Correlation coefficient trends with sea surface temperatures (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), incidence angles (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) and wind speeds (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>). Here the left column is for HH polarization, while the right column is for VV polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The KaRIn recalibration coefficient trends with the incidence angles at HH and VV polarizations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>NRCS comparisons between the KaRIn data and the model simulations. (<b>a</b>) Before recalibration and (<b>b</b>) after recalibration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Recalibrated KaRIn NRCS trends with the wind speeds from ECMWF at different incidence angles of (<b>a</b>) 0.5°, (<b>b</b>) 1.5°, (<b>c</b>) 2.5° and (<b>d</b>) 3.5°. The collocated sea surface temperature is 15 °C.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>GMF models developed by the recalibrated KaRIn NRCS data at (<b>a</b>) HH polarization and (<b>b</b>) VV polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Wind speed comparisons between KaRIn retrievals and collocations from ECMWF at (<b>a</b>) HH polarization and (<b>b</b>) VV polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Bias, RMSE and R trends with incidence angles by comparing KaRIn retrievals with ECMWF wind speeds. (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>) HH polarization; (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) VV polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Wind speed comparisons between KaRIn retrievals and collocations from HY2C-SCAT at (<b>a</b>) HH polarization and (<b>b</b>) VV polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Bias, RMSE and R trends with incidence angles by comparing KaRIn retrievals with HY2C-SCAT wind speeds. (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>) HH polarization; (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) VV polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Wind speed comparisons between KaRIn retrievals and collocations from NDBC buoy at (<b>a</b>) HH polarization and (<b>b</b>) VV polarization.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 2158 KiB  
Article
How Can Seasonality Influence the Performance of Recent Microwave Satellite Soil Moisture Products?
by Raffaele Albano, Teodosio Lacava, Arianna Mazzariello, Salvatore Manfreda, Jan Adamowski and Aurelia Sole
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(16), 3044; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16163044 - 19 Aug 2024
Viewed by 719
Abstract
In addition to technical issues related to the instruments used, differences between soil moisture (SM) measured using ground-based methods and microwave remote sensing (RS) can be related to the main features of the study areas, which are intricately connected to hydraulic–hydrological conditions and [...] Read more.
In addition to technical issues related to the instruments used, differences between soil moisture (SM) measured using ground-based methods and microwave remote sensing (RS) can be related to the main features of the study areas, which are intricately connected to hydraulic–hydrological conditions and soil properties. When long-term analysis is performed, these discrepancies are mitigated by the contribution of SM seasonality and are only evident when high-frequency variations (i.e., signal anomalies) are investigated. This study sought to examine the responsiveness of SM to seasonal variations in terrestrial ecoregions located in areas covered by the in situ Romanian Soil Moisture Network (RSMN). To achieve this aim, several remote sensing-derived retrievals were considered: (i) NASA’s Soil Moisture Active and Passive (SMAP) L4 V5 model assimilated product data; (ii) the European Space Agency’s Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity INRA–CESBIO (SMOS-IC) V2.0 data; (iii) time-series data extracted from the H115 and H116 SM products, which are derived from the analysis of Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) data acquired via MetOp satellites; (iv) Copernicus Global Land Service SSM 1 km data; and (v) the “combined” European Space Agency’s Climate Change Initiative for Soil Moisture (ESA CCI SM) product v06.1. An initial assessment of the performance of these products was conducted by checking the anomaly of long-term fluctuations, quantified using the Absolute Variation of Local Change of Environment (ALICE) index, within a time frame spanning 2015 to 2020. These correlations were then compared with those based on raw data and anomalies computed using a moving window of 35 days. Prominent correlations were observed with the SMAP L4 dataset and across all ecoregions, and the Balkan mixed forests (646) exhibited strong concordance regardless of the satellite source (with a correlation coefficient RALICE > 0.5). In contrast, neither the Central European mixed forests (No. 654) nor the Pontic steppe (No. 735) were adequately characterized by any satellite dataset (RALICE < 0.5). Subsequently, the phenological seasonality and dynamic behavior of SM were computed to investigate the effects of the wetting and drying processes. Notably, the Central European mixed forests (654) underwent an extended dry phase (with an extremely low p-value of 2.20 × 10−16) during both the growth and dormancy phases. This finding explains why the RSMN showcases divergent behavior and underscores why no satellite dataset can effectively capture the complexities of the ecoregions covered by this in situ SM network. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Climate-Related Hazards)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>General study workflow: the blue boxes indicate pre-processing phases, and the grey and dark gray boxes indicate the steps related to the ALICE index and the phenological seasonality and dynamic behavior of soil moisture (SM), respectively. The figure is adapted from [<a href="#B13-remotesensing-16-03044" class="html-bibr">13</a>]. Please note that the “SM Dynamic” analysis refers to the work of Manfreda et al., 2007 in [<a href="#B22-remotesensing-16-03044" class="html-bibr">22</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Ecoregions analyzed in the present study and the Romanian Soil Moisture Network (RSMN).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Growth (blue) and dormancy (light gray) phases in each ecoregion. Derived from [<a href="#B13-remotesensing-16-03044" class="html-bibr">13</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Pearson Correlation Coefficient between ASCAT time series and in situ ISMN boxplots for the following ecoregions: No. 646 Balkan mixed forests, No. 654 Central European mixed forests, No. 661 East European forest steppe, No. 674 Pannonian mixed forests, and No. 735 Pontic steppe. Derived from [<a href="#B13-remotesensing-16-03044" class="html-bibr">13</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Overall, the growth phase and dormancy phase surface soil moisture (SSM) frequency distribution in the Balkan mixed forests (646), Central European mixed forests (654), East European forest steppe (661), Pannonian mixed forests (674), and Pontic steppe (735). N.B. A different maximum <span class="html-italic">y</span>-value was employed depending on the sample distribution in order to avoid losing details of the curve shape. Adapted from [<a href="#B13-remotesensing-16-03044" class="html-bibr">13</a>].</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 15151 KiB  
Article
Polar Sea Ice Monitoring Using HY-2B Satellite Scatterometer and Scanning Microwave Radiometer Measurements
by Tao Zeng, Lijian Shi, Yingni Shi, Dunwang Lu and Qimao Wang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(13), 2486; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16132486 - 6 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1092
Abstract
The Ku band microwave scatterometer (SCA) and scanning microwave radiometer (SMR) onboard HaiYang-2B (HY-2B) can simultaneously supply active and passive microwave observations over the polar region. In this paper, a polar ice water discrimination model and Arctic sea-ice-type classification model based on the [...] Read more.
The Ku band microwave scatterometer (SCA) and scanning microwave radiometer (SMR) onboard HaiYang-2B (HY-2B) can simultaneously supply active and passive microwave observations over the polar region. In this paper, a polar ice water discrimination model and Arctic sea-ice-type classification model based on the support vector machine (SVM) method were established and used to produce a daily sea ice extent dataset from 2019 to 2021 with data from SCA and SMR. First, suitable scattering and radiation parameters are chosen as input data for the discriminant model. Then, the sea ice extent was obtained based on the monthly ice water discrimination model, and finally, the ice over the Arctic was classified into multiyear ice (MYI) and first-year ice (FYI). The 3-year ice extent and MYI extent products were consistent with the similar results of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF). Using the OSISAF similar product as validation data, the overall accuracies (OAs) of ice/water discrimination and FYI/MYI discrimination are 99% and 97%, respectively. Compared with the high spatial resolution classification results of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and SAR, the OAs of ice/water discrimination and FYI/MYI discrimination are 96% and 86%, respectively. In conclusion, the SAC and SMR of HY-2B have been verified for monitoring polar sea ice, and the sea ice extent and sea-ice-type products are promising for integration into long-term sea ice records. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Sea Ice Research Using Satellite Data)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>SCA and SMR images over the Arctic region on 26 February 2019. (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>HH</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> observed using SCA, (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">T</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">b</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mn>37</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">H</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> observed using SMR, land is shown in grey.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Time series of daily histograms of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>HH</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">T</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">b</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mn>37</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">H</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) over different regions during 2019, x-axis is the day number and y-axis is the value of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>HH</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">T</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">b</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mn>37</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">H</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) are histograms over the hole Arctic region, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) are histograms over the Arctic ice covered area. Each daily histogram in the time series is normalized by maximum observation count, concatenated together and rendered according to the color bar. (<b>a</b>) The small peak at −8 dB in the white box corresponds to MYI and the peak between −15 dB and −20 dB in the red box corresponds to FYI and OW. (<b>b</b>) The peak at approximately 230 K in the white box corresponds to FYI, while the MYI and OW values are between 130 K and 160 K. (<b>c</b>) The small peak near −7 db in the white box corresponds to MYI and the peak between −17 and −19 in the red box corresponds to FYI. (<b>d</b>) The peak near 230 K in the white box corresponds to FYI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Time series of daily histograms of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>HH</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">T</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">b</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mn>37</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">H</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) over different regions during 2019, x-axis is the day number and y-axis is the value of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>HH</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">T</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">b</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mn>37</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">H</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) are histograms over the hole Arctic region, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) are histograms over the Arctic ice covered area. Each daily histogram in the time series is normalized by maximum observation count, concatenated together and rendered according to the color bar. (<b>a</b>) The small peak at −8 dB in the white box corresponds to MYI and the peak between −15 dB and −20 dB in the red box corresponds to FYI and OW. (<b>b</b>) The peak at approximately 230 K in the white box corresponds to FYI, while the MYI and OW values are between 130 K and 160 K. (<b>c</b>) The small peak near −7 db in the white box corresponds to MYI and the peak between −17 and −19 in the red box corresponds to FYI. (<b>d</b>) The peak near 230 K in the white box corresponds to FYI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The correlation matrix of SCA’s five parameters (<b>a</b>) and SMR’s seven parameters (<b>b</b>) over the ocean area on 5 December 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The analytical results of the classification distance of SCA’s five parameters (<b>a</b>) and SMR’s seven parameters (<b>b</b>) in 2019 over the Arctic.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Different sea ice extent results on 5 March 2019. (<b>a</b>) Result with 5 SCA parameters. (<b>b</b>) Result with 3 SCA parameters. (<b>c</b>) Result with parameters of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfenced close="]" open="["> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>HH</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> <mo>,</mo> <mrow> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>Ratio</mi> </mrow> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mrow> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>STD</mi> </mrow> </mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">H</mi> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mrow> <mtext> </mtext> <mi mathvariant="normal">T</mi> </mrow> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">b</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mn>18.7</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <mrow> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>PR</mi> </mrow> </mrow> </mfenced> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>d</b>) Product of OSISAF. The results of (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) have some incorrect identifications of ice and water over the area within the red frame.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Variation in overall accuracy (dotted line) and Kappa coefficient (solid line) for the Arctic (<b>top</b>) and Antarctic (<b>bottom</b>) from 2019 to 2021: The blue line represents the result of 5 SCA parameters and the red line represents the result of selected parameters of SCA and SMR.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Time series of Arctic and Antarctic daily sea ice extents from 2019 to 2021 based on different data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Time series of IIEE between HY-2B and other products over the Arctic and Antarctic from 2019 to 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Distribution of Arctic sea ice types on the 15th of each month from January to April (<b>the first row</b>) and from October to December (<b>the second row</b>) in 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Time series of Arctic MYI extent derived from HY-2B and OSISAF from 2019 to 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Time series of assessment parameters of the ice water discrimination results in the Arctic from 2019 to 2021 for (<b>a</b>) OA and Kappa coefficient, (<b>b</b>) UA of open water and ice, and (<b>c</b>) PA of open water and ice.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Time series of assessment parameters of the ice water discrimination results in the Antarctic from 2019 to 2021 for (<b>a</b>) OA and Kappa coefficient, (<b>b</b>) UA of open water and ice, respectively, and (<b>c</b>) PA of open water and ice.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12 Cont.
<p>Time series of assessment parameters of the ice water discrimination results in the Antarctic from 2019 to 2021 for (<b>a</b>) OA and Kappa coefficient, (<b>b</b>) UA of open water and ice, respectively, and (<b>c</b>) PA of open water and ice.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Time series of assessment parameters of the ice-type discrimination results in the Arctic from 2019 to 2021 for (<b>a</b>) OA and Kappa coefficient, (<b>b</b>) UA of OW, FYI and MYI, and (<b>c</b>) PA of OW, FYI and MYI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13 Cont.
<p>Time series of assessment parameters of the ice-type discrimination results in the Arctic from 2019 to 2021 for (<b>a</b>) OA and Kappa coefficient, (<b>b</b>) UA of OW, FYI and MYI, and (<b>c</b>) PA of OW, FYI and MYI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>MODIS image and sea ice distribution near Canadian islands on 1 July 2019. (<b>a</b>) MODIS image, the coastline is shown in red. (<b>b</b>) Sea ice extent with a spatial resolution of 25 km based on MODIS image. (<b>c</b>) Sea ice extent result obtained using HY-2B in this paper.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>MODIS image and sea ice distribution over Ross Sea on 2 January 2020. (<b>a</b>) MODIS image, the coastline is shown in red. (<b>b</b>) Sea ice extent with a spatial resolution of 25 km based on MODIS image. (<b>c</b>) Sea ice extent result obtained using HY-2B in this paper.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>SAR image and FYI and MYI distribution near Canadian Archipelago on 18 January 2019. (<b>a</b>) SAR image, the coastline is shown in red. (<b>b</b>) Sea ice type with a spatial resolution of 25 km based on the SAR image. (<b>c</b>) Sea ice type result obtained using HY-2B in this paper.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>SAR image and FYI and MYI distribution near Canadian Archipelago on 23 December 2019. (<b>a</b>) SAR image, the coastline is shown in red. (<b>b</b>) Sea ice type with a spatial resolution of 25 km based on the SAR image. (<b>c</b>) Sea ice type result obtained using HY-2B in this paper.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 13599 KiB  
Article
Dual-Mode Sea Ice Extent Retrieval for the Rotating Fan Beam Scatterometer
by Liling Liu, Xiaolong Dong, Wenming Lin and Shuyan Lang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(13), 2378; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16132378 - 28 Jun 2024
Viewed by 591
Abstract
Scatterometers are highlighted in polar applications, such as sea ice extent retrieval. There are currently three types of spaceborne scatterometer in operation, among which the rotating pencil beam scatterometer and the rotating fan beam scatterometer have similar rotating observation geometry, but different beam [...] Read more.
Scatterometers are highlighted in polar applications, such as sea ice extent retrieval. There are currently three types of spaceborne scatterometer in operation, among which the rotating pencil beam scatterometer and the rotating fan beam scatterometer have similar rotating observation geometry, but different beam sampling. However, it is difficult to objectively evaluate the performance of the two rotating beam scatterometers using the obtained data. This is because there are significant differences in their system parameters, which in turn affects the objectivity of the evaluation. Considering the high flexibility of the rotating fan beam scatterometer, this study proposes a dual-mode sea ice extent retrieval method for the rotating fan beam scatterometer. The dual modes refer to the rotating fan beam mode (or full incidence mode) and the equivalent rotating pencil beam mode (or single incidence mode). The two modes share the same system and spatiotemporal synchronous backscatter measurements provide the possibility of objectively comparing the rotating pencil beam and rotating fan beam scatterometers. The comparison, validation, and evaluation of the dual-mode sea ice extent of China France Oceanography Satellite Scatterometer (CSCAT) were performed. The results indicate that the sea ice extent retrieval of the equivalent rotating pencil beam mode of the rotating fan beam scatterometer is realizable, and compared to the existing rotating pencil beam scatterometers (such as the OceanSat Scatterometer on ScatSat-1, OSCAT, on ScatSat-1, and the Hai Yang 2B Scatterometer, HSCAT-B), the derived sea ice extent is closer to that of Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2). For the two modes of CSCAT, when compared to AMSR2, the sea ice extent of the CSCAT full incidence mode has smaller values of root mean squared error (RMSE), error-of-ice (EI), and ice edge location distance (LD) than those of the CSCAT single incidence mode. These suggest that the rotating fan beam scatterometer shows better observation abilities for sea ice extent than the rotating pencil beam scatterometers. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Scan geometry of the rotating beam scatterometer: (<b>a</b>) pencil beam; (<b>b</b>) fan beam.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Top view of CSCAT observation geometry: (<b>a</b>) rotating fan beam mode; (<b>b</b>) equivalent rotating pencil beam mode.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The incidence and antenna azimuth angle for different CSCAT WVC values on 1 January 2019 (Revolution 12): (<b>a</b>) incidence; (<b>b</b>) antenna azimuth angle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The extracted data in the fore/after plane on 1 January 2019 (Revolution 12): (<b>a</b>) probability distribution of the average incidences; (<b>b</b>) distribution of the antenna azimuth angles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The backscattering of sea ice and open water of the CSCAT equivalent rotating pencil beam mode data in the Arctic region on 15 March 2019: (<b>a</b>) inner WVC (40°); (<b>b</b>) outer WVC (48°).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Distribution of slope and intercept values derived from preprocessed Arctic daily backscatter data from January to March in 2019–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Sea ice GMF for the equivalent rotating pencil beam mode of CSCAT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Distribution of the distance between measured backscatter and the sea ice GMF model for the inner and outer WVCs on the fore/after backscatter plane using the preprocessed CSCAT data on 15 March 2019: (<b>a</b>) Arctic Region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic Region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Distribution of the distance between measured backscatter and the sea ice GMF model for the inner and outer WVCs on the fore/after backscatter plane using the preprocessed CSCAT data on 15 March 2019: (<b>a</b>) Arctic Region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic Region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The value of <span class="html-italic">μ</span> and std for the inner and outer WVCs in the Arctic and Antarctic regions using the preprocessed CSCAT data: (<b>a</b>) 2019; (<b>b</b>) 2020; (<b>c</b>) 2021; (<b>d</b>) 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>The value of <span class="html-italic">μ</span> and std for the inner and outer WVCs in the Arctic and Antarctic regions using the preprocessed CSCAT data: (<b>a</b>) 2019; (<b>b</b>) 2020; (<b>c</b>) 2021; (<b>d</b>) 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Gaussian parameters for the distance normalization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The probability distribution of <span class="html-italic">MLE</span><sub>ice</sub> of the preprocessed CSCAT data on 24 April 2020: (<b>a</b>) Arctic region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11 Cont.
<p>The probability distribution of <span class="html-italic">MLE</span><sub>ice</sub> of the preprocessed CSCAT data on 24 April 2020: (<b>a</b>) Arctic region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The probability distribution of <span class="html-italic">MLE</span><sub>wind</sub> of the preprocessed CSCAT data on 24 April 2020: (<b>a</b>) Arctic region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Flowchart of the dual-mode sea ice extent retrieval for the rotating fan beam scatterometer.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Arctic Bayesian probability images (<b>left</b>) and sea ice extent images (<b>right</b>) on 10 December 2019: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT full incidence mode; (<b>b</b>) CSCAT single incidence mode. The colorbar gives the Bayesian probability and the water/ice classification is signified with 0/1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Comparison of sea ice extent from CSCAT dual modes during 2019–2022: (<b>a</b>) Arctic region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Timeline of the satellite scatterometer data used for comparison.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Sea ice extent comparison among CSCAT dual modes, OSCAT, HSCAT-B, and AMSR2, for three years.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Monthly RMSE distribution of CSCAT dual modes in the Antarctic region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Sea ice extent comparison for the different rotating pencil beam scatterometer data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Spatial distributions of the overestimated (red), underestimated (light blue), and overlapping (light gray) ice pixels in the sea ice extent images of CSCAT compared to AMSR2 on 10 June 2019: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT full incidence mode; (<b>b</b>) CSCAT single incidence mode. Non-ice pixels are set to white. The black lines represent the sea ice edges of AMSR2 at 15% sea ice concentration. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>n</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">O</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>n</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">U</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> correspond to the sum of all red and light blue ice pixels.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Comparison of EI, EO, and EU between the sea ice extent resulting from the CSCAT dual mode for the three years (2019, 2020, 2022): (<b>a</b>) Arctic region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Comparison of LD between the sea ice extent resulted from CSCAT dual modes for the three years (2019, 2020, 2022): (<b>a</b>) Arctic region; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 14452 KiB  
Article
Detecting Melt Pond Onset on Landfast Arctic Sea Ice Using a Dual C-Band Satellite Approach
by Syeda Shahida Maknun, Torsten Geldsetzer, Vishnu Nandan, John Yackel and Mallik Mahmud
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(12), 2091; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16122091 - 9 Jun 2024
Viewed by 1094
Abstract
The presence of melt ponds on the surface of Arctic Sea ice affects its albedo, thermal properties, and overall melting rate; thus, the detection of melt pond onset is of significant importance for understanding the Arctic’s changing climate. This study investigates the utility [...] Read more.
The presence of melt ponds on the surface of Arctic Sea ice affects its albedo, thermal properties, and overall melting rate; thus, the detection of melt pond onset is of significant importance for understanding the Arctic’s changing climate. This study investigates the utility of a novel method for detecting the onset of melt ponds on sea ice using a satellite-based, dual-sensor C-band approach, whereby Sentinel-1 provides horizontally polarized (HH) data and Advanced SCATterometer (ASCAT) provides vertically polarized (VV) data. The co-polarized ratio (VV/HH) is used to detect the presence of melt ponds on landfast sea ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in 2017 and 2018. ERA-5 air temperature and wind speed re-analysis datasets are used to establish the VV/HH threshold for pond onset detection, which have been further validated by Landsat-8 reflectance. The co-polarized ratio threshold of three standard deviations from the late winter season (April) mean co-pol ratio values are used for assessing pond onset detection associated with the air temperature and wind speed data, along with visual observations from Sentinel-1 and cloud-free Sentinel-2 imagery. In 2017, the pond onset detection rates were 70.59% for FYI and 92.3% for MYI. Results suggest that this method, because of its dual-platform application, has potential for providing large-area coverage estimation of the timing of sea ice melt pond onset using different earth observation satellites. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Maps of the study region showing sample site locations by ice type in (<b>a</b>) 2017 and (<b>b</b>) 2018. Sample site selection is described in <a href="#sec4dot3-remotesensing-16-02091" class="html-sec">Section 4.3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 1 Cont.
<p>Maps of the study region showing sample site locations by ice type in (<b>a</b>) 2017 and (<b>b</b>) 2018. Sample site selection is described in <a href="#sec4dot3-remotesensing-16-02091" class="html-sec">Section 4.3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>ASCAT data processing method. (<b>a</b>) ASCAT 12.5 km points for one file: 1 April 2018 at 01:06. (<b>b</b>) ASCAT 12.5 km points for one day (01−04−2018). (<b>c</b>) ASCAT 12.5 km points following checks (purple dots) for one day (01−04−2018), a regular 5 km grid (black dots), and a 25 km land buffer (brown lines). (<b>d</b>) ASCAT daily weighted mean, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, for 2018-04-01. Legend is backscatter in dB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>ERA−5 April mean daily 2 m air temperatures for all sites in 2017 and 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Wind speed data for (<b>a</b>) 2017 and (<b>b</b>) 2018 during the melt season.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Site FYI_26_2017, showing daily time series of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, 2 m air temperature, and wind speed. The orange line in the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> data shows days with wind speed &lt; 3 ms<sup>−1</sup>. The navy−blue line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in sky blue. The black line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in dark grey. PO date (vertical red line) shows the date the pond onset occurred, in Day of Year. The validation window is presented as two separate yellow vertical lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Site FYI_26_2017 image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 2 April 2017). (<b>b</b>) Image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 25 May 2017). (<b>c</b>) Sentinel-2 RGB (4,3,2) image of the site from 12 June 2017. Blue circles in S-1 images and the red circle in S-2 represent the site locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Site FYI_9_2018, showing daily time series of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, 2 m air temperature, and wind speed. The orange line in the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> data shows days with wind speed &lt; 3 ms<sup>−1</sup>. The navy−blue line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in sky blue. The black line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in dark grey. PO date (vertical red line) shows the date the pond onset occurred, in Day of Year. The validation window is presented as two separate yellow vertical lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Site FYI_9_2018 image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 3 April 2018). (<b>b</b>) Site image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 6 June 2018). (<b>c</b>) Sentinel-2 RGB (4,3,2) image of the site from 13 June 2018. Blue circles in S-1 images and the red circle in S-2 represent the site locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Site MYI_11_2017, showing daily time series of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, 2 m air temperature, and wind speed. The orange line in the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> data shows days with wind speed &lt; 3 ms<sup>−1</sup>. The navy−blue line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in sky blue. The black line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in dark grey. PO date (vertical red line) shows the date the pond onset occurred, in Day of Year. The validation window is presented as two separate yellow vertical lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Site MYI_11_2017 image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 2 April 2017). (<b>b</b>) Image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 23 June 2017). (<b>c</b>) Sentinel-2 RGB (4,3,2) image of the site from 21 June 2017. Blue circles in S-1 images and the red circle in S-2 represent the site locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Site MYI_13_2018, showing daily time series of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, 2 m air temperature, and wind speed. The orange line in the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> data shows days with wind speed &lt; 3 ms<sup>−1</sup>. The navy−blue line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in sky blue. The black line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in dark grey. PO date (vertical red line) shows the date the pond onset occurred, in Day of Year. The validation window is presented as two separate yellow vertical lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Site MYI_13_2018 image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 4 April 2018). (<b>b</b>) Image from Sentinel-1 (Date: 10 June 2018). (<b>c</b>) Sentinel-2 RGB (4,3,2) image of the site from 13 June 2018 (right). Blue circles in S-1 images and the red circle in S-2 represent the site locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Box plots showing the regional and temporal variability in PO DOY for MYI and FYI. The black dots in the box plots represent observed PO on days that fell slightly outside the typical day range defined by the whiskers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Site FYI_04_2018, showing daily time series of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, 2 m air temperature, and wind speed. The orange line in the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>γ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> data shows days with wind speed &lt; 3 ms<sup>−1</sup>. The navy−blue line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>H</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in sky blue. The black line is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, with imputed daily values in dark grey.</p>
Full article ">
9 pages, 2716 KiB  
Communication
A Land-Corrected ASCAT Coastal Wind Product
by Jur Vogelzang and Ad Stoffelen
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(12), 2053; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16122053 - 7 Jun 2024
Viewed by 556
Abstract
A new ASCAT coastal wind product based on a 12.5 km grid size is presented. The new product contains winds up to the coast line and is identical to the current operational coastal product over the open ocean. It is based on the [...] Read more.
A new ASCAT coastal wind product based on a 12.5 km grid size is presented. The new product contains winds up to the coast line and is identical to the current operational coastal product over the open ocean. It is based on the assumption that within a wind vector cell land and sea have constant radar cross section. With an accurate land fraction calculated from ASCAT’s spatial response function and a detailed land mask, the land correction can be obtained with a simple linear regression. The coastal winds stretch all the way to the coast, filling the coastal gap in the operational coastal ASCAT product, resulting in three times more winds within a distance of 20 km from the coast. The Quality Control (QC), based on the regression error and the regression bias error, reduces this abundance somewhat. A comparison of wind speed pdfs with those from NWP forecasts shows that the influence of land in the land-corrected scatterometer product appears more reasonable and starts not as far offshore as that in the NWP forecasts. The VRMS difference with moored buoys increases slightly from about 2.4 m/s at 20 km or more from the coast to 4.2 m/s at less than 5 km, where coastal wind effects clearly contribute to the latter difference. While the QC based on the regression bias error flags many WVCs that compare well with buoys, the land-corrected coastal product with more abundant coastal winds appears useful for nowcasting and other coastal wind applications. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Example of land correction by regression for row 106 and WVC 38 of the first ASCAT-B file of 2017. The dots represent the radar cross section values for the fore, mid, and aft beams from left to right and the dashed line is the regression line used to correct the colored dots for each associated land fraction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Land-corrected wind fields over the Philippines on 1 January 2017 without weighted full-resolution radar cross sections (<b>left</b>-hand panel) and with Gaussian weights (<b>right</b>-hand panel).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Wind speed pdfs as a function of the distance to the coast in 10 km bins for the land-corrected ASCAT product (<b>left</b>-hand panel) and collocated ECMWF forecasts (<b>right</b>-hand panel).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Number of buoys contained in each dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Two-dimensional histogram of the maximum regression bias error against the VRMS of the difference between buoy winds and land-corrected winds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Land-corrected wind field over the Philippines recorded on 1 January 2017 with and without quality control.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Example 6.25 km sampled AWDP product using land correction (see legend in <a href="#remotesensing-16-02053-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>). Around the Maasvlakte in the Netherlands (52.0°N, 4.0°W) and near Oostende in Belgium (51.1°N, 2.3°W), coastal artifacts appear due to coastal infrastructure and many massive container ships, as also visible on SAR images [<a href="#B8-remotesensing-16-02053" class="html-bibr">8</a>].</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 4019 KiB  
Article
Assessment of C-Band Polarimetric Radar for the Detection of Diesel Fuel in Newly Formed Sea Ice
by Leah Hicks, Mahdi Zabihi Mayvan, Elvis Asihene, Durell S. Desmond, Katarzyna Polcwiartek, Gary A. Stern and Dustin Isleifson
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(11), 2002; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16112002 - 2 Jun 2024
Viewed by 546
Abstract
There is a heightened risk of an oil spill occurring in the Arctic, as climate change driven sea ice loss permits an increase in Arctic marine transportation. The ability to detect an oil spill and monitor its progression is key to enacting an [...] Read more.
There is a heightened risk of an oil spill occurring in the Arctic, as climate change driven sea ice loss permits an increase in Arctic marine transportation. The ability to detect an oil spill and monitor its progression is key to enacting an effective response. Microwave scatterometer systems may be used detect changes in sea ice thermodynamic and physical properties, so we examined the potential of C-band polarimetric radar for detecting diesel fuel beneath a thin sea ice layer. Sea ice physical properties, including thickness, temperature, and salinity, were measured before and after diesel addition beneath the ice. Time-series polarimetric C-band scatterometer measurements monitored the sea ice evolution and diesel migration to the sea ice surface. We characterized the temporal evolution of the diesel-contaminated seawater and sea ice by monitoring the normalized radar cross section (NRCS) and polarimetric parameters (conformity coefficient (μ), copolarization correlation coefficient (ρco)) at 20° and 25° incidence angles. We delineated three stages, with distinct NRCS and polarimetric results, which could be connected to the thermophysical state and the presence of diesel on the surface. Stage 1 described the initial formation of sea ice, while in Stage 2, we injected 20L of diesel beneath the sea ice. No immediate response was noted in the radar measurements. With the emergence of diesel on the sea ice surface, denoted by Stage 3, the NRCS dropped substantially. The largest response was for VV and HH polarizations at 20° incidence angle. Physical sampling indicated that diesel emerged to the surface of the sea ice and trended towards the tub edge and the polarimetric scatterometer was sensitive to these physical changes. This study contributes to a greater understanding of how C-band frequencies can be used to monitor oil products in the Arctic and act as a baseline for the interpretation of satellite data. Additionally, these findings will assist in the development of standards for oil and diesel fuel detection in the Canadian Arctic in association with the Canadian Standards Association Group. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>SERF Site Overview Prior to Experimental Setup.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Experimental Setup at SERF and Radar Footprint of C-Scat (outlined in red). The highlighted areas represent the swaths of incidence angles used in this study after a careful inspection was done to eliminate errors associated with the edge of the tub. The solid blue line represents the incidence angle of 20° while the dashed yellow line is 25°.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Physical Sampling Locations. S1: 7 March before oil injection, S2: 7 March after diesel injection, S3: 8 March, S4: 9 March.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Temporal Progression of Ice Growth and Presence of Diesel Throughout the Study Period. (<b>A</b>) Start of Study, (<b>B</b>) Ice Formed, (<b>C</b>) After S1 and After Diesel Injection, (<b>D</b>) After S2, (<b>E</b>) After S3, (<b>F</b>) After S4 and End of Study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Temporal Variation of Air Temperature, Relative Humidity, and Wind Speed Throughout the Study Period. The Time of Diesel Injection is Marked by a Blue Line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>C-band NRCS Values for the study period at the 20° and 25° incidence angles. The red shaded area is Stage 1, the non-shaded area is Stage 2, and the blue shaded area is Stage 3. The blue line denotes the time of diesel injection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Copolarization correlation coefficient (ρco) and conformity coefficient (μ) for the 20° (upper panel) and 25° (lower panel) incidence angles. The red-shaded area is stage one, the non-shaded area is stage two, and the blue-shaded area is stage three. A solid vertical blue line denotes the time of diesel injection.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 4891 KiB  
Article
A Technique for SAR Significant Wave Height Retrieval Using Azimuthal Cut-Off Wavelength Based on Machine Learning
by Shaijie Leng, Mengyu Hao, Weizeng Shao, Armando Marino and Xingwei Jiang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(9), 1644; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16091644 - 5 May 2024
Viewed by 1103
Abstract
This study introduces a new machine learning-based algorithm for the retrieving significant wave height (SWH) using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. This algorithm is based on the azimuthal cut-off wavelength and was developed in quad-polarized stripmap (QPS) mode in coastal waters. The collected [...] Read more.
This study introduces a new machine learning-based algorithm for the retrieving significant wave height (SWH) using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images. This algorithm is based on the azimuthal cut-off wavelength and was developed in quad-polarized stripmap (QPS) mode in coastal waters. The collected images are collocated with a wave simulation from the numeric model, called WAVEWATCH-III (WW3), and the current speed from the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM). The sea surface wind is retrieved from the image at the vertical–vertical polarization channel, using the geophysical model function (GMF) CSARMOD-GF. The results of the algorithm were validated against the measurements obtained from the Haiyang-2B (HY-2B) scatterometer, yielding a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 1.99 m/s with a 0.82 correlation (COR) and 0.27 scatter index of wind speed. It was found that the SWH depends on the wind speed and azimuthal cut-off wavelength. However, the current speed has less of an influence on azimuthal cut-off wavelength. Following this rationale, four widely known machine learning methods were employed that take the SAR-derived azimuthal cut-off wavelength, wind speed, and radar incidence angle as inputs and then output the SWH. The validation result shows that the SAR-derived SWH by eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) against the HY-2B altimeter products has a 0.34 m RMSE with a 0.97 COR and a 0.07 bias, which is better than the results obtained using an existing algorithm (i.e., a 1.10 m RMSE with a 0.77 COR and a 0.44 bias) and the other three machine learning methods (i.e., a >0.58 m RMSE with a <0.95 COR), i.e., convolutional neural networks (CNNs), Support Vector Regression (SVR) and the ridge regression model (RR). As a result, XGBoost is a highly efficient approach for GF-3 wave retrieval at the regular sea state. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>A quick look at a Gaofen-3 (GF-3) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) in vertical–vertical (VV) polarization after calibration, which was taken at 09:44 UTC on 29 September 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Frame of all images. Black and blue rectangles represent the spatial coverage of images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Two-dimensional SAR spectrum at a spatial scale between 800 m and 3 km extracted from the image in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01644-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>, in which the red line represents wind direction with 180° ambiguity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) reanalysis (ERA-5) wind at 10:00 UTC on 29 September 2021, in which the black rectangle represents the spatial coverage of the image in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01644-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Maps from the HY-2B scatterometer and altimeter on 25 October 2020: (<b>a</b>) wind and (<b>b</b>) significant wave height (SWH).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Current map at 9:00 UTC on 29 September 2021, from HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM), and (<b>b</b>) the WW3-simulated SWH map at 10:00 UTC on 29 September 2021, in which the black rectangle represents the spatial coverage of the image in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01644-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The general processing flow diagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) SAR-derived wind map corresponding to the image in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01644-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>, and (<b>b</b>) a comparison between SAR retrievals and wind speeds of the HY-2B scatterometer.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Two-dimensional SAR intensity spectrum of the sub-scene in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01644-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>a at a spatial scale between 60 m and 1 km. (<b>b</b>) The one-dimensional SAR-derived wave spectrum.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Relation between SWH and two variables: (<b>a</b>) wind speed for a 1 m/s bin and (<b>b</b>) azimuthal cut-off wavelength for a 1 m bin. (<b>c</b>) Relation between azimuthal cut-off wavelength and current speed for a 0.1 m/s bin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Performance of the training process: (<b>a</b>) eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), (<b>b</b>) convolutional neural networks (CNN), and (<b>c</b>) the SHAP value map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Retrieval results along the track corresponding to the image in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01644-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>; (<b>b</b>) the retrieval results and HY-2B footprints with respect to latitude. The color circles represent the footprints of the HY-2B altimeter, and the black rectangles represent the spatial coverage of the image corresponding to <a href="#remotesensing-16-01644-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Validation of SAR retrievals by (<b>a</b>) the XGBoost, (<b>b</b>) parameterized first-guess spectrum method (PFSM), (<b>c</b>) the CNN, (<b>d</b>) the RR, and (<b>e</b>) the SVR against the measurements from the HY-2B altimeter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Variations in the bias (SAR retrievals minus HY-2B measurements) with respect to (<b>a</b>) SAR-derived azimuthal cut-off wavelength, (<b>b</b>) SAR-derived wind speed, and (<b>c</b>) SWH measured by the HY-2B altimeter.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 9257 KiB  
Article
Polarized Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function Matrix Derived from Two-Scale Roughness Theory and Its Applications in Active Remote Sensing
by Lingli He, Fuzhong Weng, Jinghan Wen and Tong Jia
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(9), 1551; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16091551 - 26 Apr 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 910
Abstract
A polarized bidirectional reflectance distribution function (pBRDF) matrix was developed based on the two-scale roughness theory to provide consistent simulations of fully polarized microwave emission and scattering, required for the ocean–atmosphere-coupled radiative transfer model. In this study, the potential of the two-scale pBRDF [...] Read more.
A polarized bidirectional reflectance distribution function (pBRDF) matrix was developed based on the two-scale roughness theory to provide consistent simulations of fully polarized microwave emission and scattering, required for the ocean–atmosphere-coupled radiative transfer model. In this study, the potential of the two-scale pBRDF matrix was explored for simulating ocean full-polarization backscattering and bistatic-scattering normalized radar cross sections (NRCSs). Comprehensive numerical simulations of the two-scale pBRDF matrix across the L-, C-, X-, and Ku-bands were carried out, and the simulations were compared with experimental data, classical electromagnetic, and GMFs. The results show that the two-scale pBRDF matrix demonstrates reasonable dependencies on ocean surface wind speeds, relative wind direction (RWD), geometries, and frequencies and has a reliable accuracy in general. In addition, the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations were compared with the observations from the advanced scatterometer (ASCAT) onboard MetOP-C satellites, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9634 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.5083 dB. In the bistatic case, the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations were compared with Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS) observations, demonstrating a good correlation coefficient of 0.8480 and an RMSE of 1.2859 dB. In both cases, the two-scale pBRDF matrix produced fairly good simulations at medium-to-high wind speeds. The relatively large differences at low wind speeds (<5 m/s) were due probably to the swell effects. This study proves that the two-scale pBRDF matrix is suitable for the applications of multiple types of active instruments and can consistently simulate the ocean surface passive and active signals. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Different geometrical configurations for wave scattering from the ocean surface. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"> <mi>I</mi> </mstyle> <mi>i</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> is the incoming radiance vectors from the solid angle <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <msup> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> incident from the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> direction on a microfacet (pink area). <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"> <mi>I</mi> </mstyle> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> is the outgoing radiance vectors from the solid angle <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <msup> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> in the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The spatial distribution of the scattering energy simulated by the two-scale pBRDF matrix at 37 GHz and 10 m/s wind speed in the specular direction. The unit of each matrix element is sr<sup>−1</sup>. The SST is 285 K, the SSS is 35‰, and the ocean wave spectrum is the modified Durden and Vesecky spectrum (DV2). (<b>a</b>) Rvvvv, (<b>b</b>) Rvhvh, (<b>c</b>) Re(Rvhvv), (<b>d</b>) Im(Rvhvv), (<b>e</b>) Rhvhv, (<b>f</b>) Rhhhh, (<b>g</b>) Re(Rhhhv), (<b>h</b>) Im(Rhhhv), (<b>i</b>) 2Re(Rvvhv), (<b>j</b>) 2Re(Rvhhh), (<b>k</b>) Re(Rvvhh+Rvhhv), (<b>l</b>) Im(Rhhvv+Rhvvh), (<b>m</b>) 2Im(Rvvhv), (<b>n</b>) 2Im(Rvhhh), (<b>o</b>) Im(Rvvhh+Rvhhv), (<b>p</b>) Re(Rhhvv-Rhvvh).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of three different emissivity models. The ordinate is the emissivity of each component. The wind speed is 10 m/s, the SST is 285 K, the frequency is 37 GHz, the observation angle is 45°, the SSS is 35‰, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) vertical component, (<b>b</b>) horizontal component, (<b>c</b>) the third component, (<b>d</b>) the fourth component.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on RWD at a 10 m/s wind speed and the comparisons with other simulations or data. (<b>a</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (solid line) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (dotted line) polarizations at the Ku-band. (<b>b</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> polarizations at the Ku-band. (<b>c</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (solid line) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (dotted line) polarizations at the C-band. (<b>d</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> polarizations at the C-band. The Ku-band and C-band simulations are at incidence zenith angles of 45° and 35°, respectively. The black dots’ line, stars’ line, and triangles’ line are the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> experimental data, respectively. The SSS is set to 35‰, and the SST is 285 K. The cyan, orange color, and purple colors represent the simulations of the two-scale pBRDF matrix with Kudryatsev, Elfouhaily, and DV2 spectra, respectively. The yellow color represents the classical TSM simulation. The magenta and green colors represent the simulations of the NSCAT4 and CMOD7 simulations, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the incidence angle at the X-band and a 10 m/s wind speed. The results are shown for three different RWDs: (<b>a</b>) RWD = 0°, (<b>b</b>) RWD = 90°, and (<b>c</b>) RWD = 180°. (<b>d</b>) The polarization ratios under different RWDs and the comparisons with other X-band polarization ratio models. The SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the wind speed at the L-band. The incidence zenith angle is set to 46°, the SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) 5 m/s; (<b>b</b>) 10 m/s; (<b>c</b>) 15 m/s; (<b>d</b>) 20 m/s; (<b>e</b>) 25 m/s; and (<b>f</b>) 30 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the wind speed at the C-band. The incidence zenith angle is set to 45°, the SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) 5 m/s; (<b>b</b>) 10 m/s; (<b>c</b>) 15 m/s; (<b>d</b>) 20 m/s; (<b>e</b>) 25 m/s; and (<b>f</b>) 30 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the wind speed at the Ku-band. The incidence zenith angle is set to 45°, the SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) 5 m/s; (<b>b</b>) 10 m/s; (<b>c</b>) 15 m/s; (<b>d</b>) 20 m/s; (<b>e</b>) 25 m/s; and (<b>f</b>) 30 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The dependencies of bistatic-scattering NRCSs on the scattering zenith angle at the L-band with a wind speed of 10 m/s. The incidence zenith angle is set to 45°, and the incidence azimuth angle is 0°. The scattering azimuth angles are set to (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 0°, (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 30°, (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 60°, and (<b>d</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 90°, respectively. The SSS is set to 35‰, and the SST is 285 K.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparisons of bistatic NRCSs simulated using the two-scale pBRDF matrix (solid line) and SSA2 (dotted line) at the L-band. The results are obtained for 10 m/s as a function of the RWD, within the plane of incidence, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 45°, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 35 °. (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (dark cyan line) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (orange-red line) polarizations, (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> circular polarization, and (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>L</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> circular polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Density scatter plot from the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations and ASCAT measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The dependencies of differences (measurements minus simulations) on wind speed and incidence zenith angle. Color represents the difference value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Density scatter plot from the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations and CYGNSS measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The dependencies of the differences (measurements minus simulations) on wind speed and incidence zenith angle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The plot of circularly polarized bistatic NRCSs came from CYGNSS measurements (blue plus), the two-scale pBRDF matrix (magenta circle), and GO simulations (black circle) versus the wind speed.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 6517 KiB  
Article
Concept of Spaceborne Ocean Microwave Dual-Function Integrated Sensor for Wind and Wave Measurement
by Hang Li, Wenkang Liu, Guangcai Sun, Changhong Chen, Mengdao Xing, Zhenhua Zhang and Jie Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(8), 1472; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16081472 - 21 Apr 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 906
Abstract
Dedicated to synchronously acquiring large-area, high-precision, and multi-scale ocean wind and wave information, a novel concept of a spaceborne ocean microwave dual-function integrated sensor is proposed in this paper. It integrates the functions of a scatterometer and SAR by sharing a single phased-array [...] Read more.
Dedicated to synchronously acquiring large-area, high-precision, and multi-scale ocean wind and wave information, a novel concept of a spaceborne ocean microwave dual-function integrated sensor is proposed in this paper. It integrates the functions of a scatterometer and SAR by sharing a single phased-array antenna. An overview of the scientific requirements and motivations for the sensor are outlined firstly. In order to fulfill the observation requirements of both the functions, the constraints on the system parameters such as frequency, antenna size, and incidence angle are analyzed. Then, the selection principles of these parameters are discussed within the limitations of antenna area, bandwidth, available time, and cost. Additionally, the constraints on the time sequence of transmitting and receiving pulses are derived to ensure that there is no conflict when the two functions operate simultaneously. Subsequently, a method for jointly designing the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) of both the functions is introduced, along with zebra maps to verify its effectiveness. At the end of the paper, the system and performance parameters of the sensor are given for further insight into it. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing Applications in Ocean Observation (Second Edition))
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Operation principle of the scatterometer. Orange and green ellipses respectively represent the footprint of the inner and outer beams.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Different operation principles between the proposed concept and the traditional concept.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Observation modes of the spaceborne ocean microwave dual-function integrated sensor. The orange and green spirals respectively represent the scanning footprints of the scatterometer’s inner and outer beams. The yellow boxes represent the coverages of the SAR function.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Potentialities of the proposed sensor for ocean wind and wave observation. The dashed arrows represent operations related to the single function, and the solid arrows represent dual functions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Star-ground geometrical model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Changes of backscattering coefficient with different wind speeds and incidence angle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Diagram of the time sequence.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Interferences of receiving window. (a) Condition 1. (b) Condition 2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Time sequence of the nadir echo. (<b>a</b>) Condition 1. (<b>b</b>) Condition 2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Flow chart of PRF design.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Constraint curves of antenna size in range. Points A and B represent two conflicts about antenna size requirements of the two functions at 600–900 km orbital altitudes. Points C and D are the minimum and maximum antenna sizes for SAR functions at the orbital altitude of 900 km, respectively. The peak transmit power for scatterometer function and SAR function is 60 W and 5000 W, respectively. The SNR is 5 dB. The smaller the incidence angle, the smaller the maximum range antenna size to meet the swath requirement of SAR function. Therefore, the simulated incidence angle is set to a minimum value of 20°, so as to ensure that the swath of all beam positions in strip-mapping imaging function is larger than 20 km.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Incidence angle range of the scatterometer function. Points E represent the conflict about Incident angle requirements of the two functions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Zebra map of the single-function independent operation. The blacked-out area indicates that the PRFs do not satisfy the all constraints, and the white area indicates that the PRFs do. The yellow and blue vertical lines represent the minimum PRF of scatterometer function and SAR function respectively. (The pulse width is 20 μs, the antenna size in azimuth direction is 10 m, the antenna size in range direction is 0.82 m).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Results of the Global Mode2. (<b>a</b>) Zebra map of SAR function. (<b>b</b>) Zebra map of scatterometer function. The red and green short vertical lines represent the beam positions of SAR function and scatterometer function, respectively. The yellow and blue vertical lines represent the minimum PRF of scatterometer function and SAR function respectively. The blue horizontal lines show the incident angle from top to bottom. The rose boxes are used to highlight the selected PRFs. The yellow box is used to highlight the selected area for easy comparison with subsequent simulations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Results of the Local Mode. (<b>a</b>) Zebra map of SAR function. (<b>b</b>) Zebra map of scatterometer function. The red and green short vertical lines represent the beam positions of SAR function and scatterometer function, respectively. The yellow and blue vertical lines represent the minimum PRF of scatterometer function and SAR function respectively. The blue horizontal lines show the incident angle from top to bottom. The rose boxes are used to highlight the selected PRFs. The yellow box is used to highlight the selected area for easy comparison with subsequent simulations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Results of the Regional Mode. (<b>a</b>) Zebra map of SAR function. (<b>b</b>) Zebra map of scatterometer function. The brown areas of different shades represent the constraints on the time sequence are different under different beam positions. Multiple short vertical lines represent the beam positions of SAR function and scatterometer function, respectively. The yellow and blue vertical lines represent the minimum PRF of scatterometer function and SAR function respectively. The blue horizontal lines show the incident angle from top to bottom. The rose boxes are used to highlight the selected PRFs. The yellow box is used to highlight the selected area for easy comparison with subsequent simulations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Results of the Global Mode. (<b>a</b>) Zebra map of SAR function. (<b>b</b>) Zebra map of scatterometer function. The brown areas of different shades represent the constraints on the time sequence are different under different beam positions. Multiple short vertical lines represent the beam positions of SAR function and scatterometer function, respectively. The yellow and blue vertical lines represent the minimum PRF of scatterometer function and SAR function respectively. The blue horizontal lines show the incident angle from top to bottom. The rose boxes are used to highlight the selected PRFs. The yellow box is used to highlight the selected area for easy comparison with subsequent simulations.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 12059 KiB  
Article
A Novel Rain Identification and Rain Intensity Classification Method for the CFOSAT Scatterometer
by Meixuan Quan, Jie Zhang and Rui Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(5), 887; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050887 - 2 Mar 2024
Viewed by 869
Abstract
The China–France oceanography satellite scatterometer (CSCAT) is a rotating fan-beam scanning observation scatterometer operating in the Ku-band, and its product quality is affected by rain contamination. The multiple azimuthal NRCS measurements provided by CSCAT L2A, the retrieved wind speed and wind direction provided [...] Read more.
The China–France oceanography satellite scatterometer (CSCAT) is a rotating fan-beam scanning observation scatterometer operating in the Ku-band, and its product quality is affected by rain contamination. The multiple azimuthal NRCS measurements provided by CSCAT L2A, the retrieved wind speed and wind direction provided by CSCAT L2B, as well as the rain data provided by GPM, are used to construct a new rain identification and rain intensity classification model for CSCAT. The EXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model, optimized by the Dung Beetle Optimizer (DBO) algorithm, is developed and evaluated. The performance of the DBO-XGBoost exceeds that of the CSCAT rain flag in terms of rain identification ability. Also, compared with XGBoost without parameter optimization, K-nearest Neighbor with K = 5 (KNN5) and K-nearest Neighbor with K = 3 (KNN3), the performance of DBO-XGBoost is better. Its rain identification achieves an accuracy of about 90% and a precision of about 80%, which enhances the quality control of rain. DBO-XGBoost has also shown good results in the classification of rain intensity. This ability is not available in traditional rain flags. In the global regional and local regional tests, most of the accuracy and precision in rain intensity classification have reached more than 80%. This technology makes full use of the rich observed information of CSCAT, realizes rain identification, and can also classify the rain intensity so as to further evaluate the degree of rain contamination of CSCAT products. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Global geographic distribution of the CSCAT-ERA5-KuPR collocating dataset during the period from 1 June 2020 to 30 June 2020. The colors represent the number of data points matched at the same location within a 1° × 1° bin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Probability density function of CSCAT L2B wind speed and the data volume of the CSCAT-KuPR dataset. The yellow bar chart represents the wind speed distribution of the total data. The black line represents total data, and the green and blue lines represent rain-contaminated and rain-free data, respectively. Orange is the cumulative amount of data that increases with wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Proposed DBO-based approach for XGBoost.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The population fitness curve of the DBO algorithm iteration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>ROC curve and AUC of DBO-XGBoost, XGBoost, KNN5, KNN3, and the CSCAT rain flag.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The scatter point density of rain-free data and rain-contaminated data flagged by DBO-XGBoost, XGBoost, KNN5, KNN3, and the CSCAT rain flag for retrieved wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The process of rain intensity classification by using DBO-XGBoost, XGBoost, KNN5, and KNN3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The scatter point density of different rain intensities classified by DBO-XGBoost for retrieved wind speed compared with ERA5 wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The scatter point density of different rain intensities classified by XGBoost for retrieved wind speed compared with ERA5 wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The scatter point density of different rain intensities classified by KNN5 for retrieved wind speed compared with ERA5 wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The scatter point density of different rain intensities classified by KNN3 for retrieved wind speed compared with ERA5 wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Rain and wind speed information for the North India and Northwest Pacific.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>ROC curve and AUC of the DBO-XGBoost, local model, and CSCAT rain flag in North India and the Northwest Pacific.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Rain identification by using CFO_EXPR_20200601T071229_08806 data. (<b>a</b>) CSCAT wind speed collocated area; (<b>b</b>) GPM rain collocated area; (<b>c</b>) collocated wind speed information; (<b>d</b>) collocated rain information.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 10265 KiB  
Article
Sea Ice Extent Retrieval Using CSCAT 12.5 km Sampling Data
by Liling Liu, Xiaolong Dong, Liqing Yang, Wenming Lin and Shuyan Lang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(4), 700; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16040700 - 16 Feb 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1036
Abstract
Polar sea ice extent exhibits a highly dynamic nature. This paper investigates the sea ice extent retrieval on a fine (6.25 km) grid based on the 12.5 km sampling data from the China France Ocean Satellite Scatterometer (CSCAT), which is generated by an [...] Read more.
Polar sea ice extent exhibits a highly dynamic nature. This paper investigates the sea ice extent retrieval on a fine (6.25 km) grid based on the 12.5 km sampling data from the China France Ocean Satellite Scatterometer (CSCAT), which is generated by an adapted Bayesian sea ice detection algorithm. The CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data are analyzed, a corresponding sea ice GMF model is established, and the important calculation procedures and parameter settings of the adapted Bayesian algorithm for CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data are elaborated on. The evolution of the sea ice edge and extent based on CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data from 2020 to 2022 is introduced and quantitatively compared with sea ice extent products of Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) and the Advanced Scatterometer onboard MetOp-C (ASCAT-C). The results suggest the sea ice extent of CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data has good consistency with AMSR2 at 15% sea ice concentration. The sea ice edge accuracy between them is about 7 km and 10 km for the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and their sea ice extent difference is 0.25 million km2 in 2020 and 0.5 million km2 in 2021 and 2022. Compared to ASCAT-C 12.5 km sampling data, the sea ice edge Euclidean distance (ED) of CSCAT 12.5 km data is 14 km (2020 and 2021) and 12.5 km (2022) for the Arctic region and 14 km for the Antarctic region. The sea ice extent difference between them is small except for January to May 2020 and 2021 for the Arctic region. There are significant deviations in the sea ice extents of CSCAT 12.5 km and 25 km sampling data, and their sea ice extent difference is 0.3–1.0 million km2. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The probability distribution of <span class="html-italic">MLE</span><sub>wind</sub> for different <span class="html-italic">N</span>: (<b>a</b>) Arctic region on 10 March 2021; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region on 10 September 2021. In each subgraph, the colored curves correspond to the histogram contours of <span class="html-italic">MLE</span><sub>wind</sub> for different WVCs, and the bold black curve is the fitted Gamma distribution with specific parameters of <span class="html-italic">α</span> and <span class="html-italic">β</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The distribution of sea ice GMF parameters (slope and intercept) at different incident angles for the CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data in the Arctic region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Sea ice GMF model of CSCAT. The curves of different colors represent the results of different years, with solid and dashed lines representing the results from CSCAT 12.5 km and 25 km sampling data, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Normal distribution parameters (mean <span class="html-italic">μ</span> and standard deviation std) of the distribution of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> <mo>−</mo> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>ice</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> for CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data. Different colored curves represent the results of different years.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The probability distribution of <span class="html-italic">MLE</span><sub>ice</sub> for different <span class="html-italic">N</span>: (<b>a</b>) Arctic region on 10 March 2021; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region on 10 September 2021. In each subgraph, the colored curves correspond to the histogram contours of <span class="html-italic">MLE</span><sub>ice</sub> for different WVC, and the bold black curve is the fitted chi square distribution with <span class="html-italic">N</span> degrees.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Sea ice extent maps of CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data: (<b>a</b>) Arctic region on 1 March 2021; (<b>b</b>) Antarctic region on 10 September 2021. The sea ice edge estimates are superimposed on each frame, and different colors represent the resulting sea ice edges of different data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The spatial and statistical distributions of sea ice edge ED correspond to <a href="#remotesensing-16-00700-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>b</b>) ASCAT-C 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>c</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. ASCAT-C 12.5 km; (<b>d</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. CSCAT 25 km.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7 Cont.
<p>The spatial and statistical distributions of sea ice edge ED correspond to <a href="#remotesensing-16-00700-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>b</b>) ASCAT-C 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>c</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. ASCAT-C 12.5 km; (<b>d</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. CSCAT 25 km.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Monthly average sea ice edge ED distributions for the Arctic and Antarctic regions: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>b</b>) ASCAT-C 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>c</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. ASCAT-C 12.5 km; (<b>d</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. CSCAT 25 km. The different colored curves represent the results for different years, and the shadow of each curve represents the standard deviation of ED.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Monthly average sea ice edge ED distributions for the Arctic and Antarctic regions: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>b</b>) ASCAT-C 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>c</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. ASCAT-C 12.5 km; (<b>d</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. CSCAT 25 km. The different colored curves represent the results for different years, and the shadow of each curve represents the standard deviation of ED.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The spatial distribution of EDs larger than 3 pixels in the Arctic region from May to October 2020: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>b</b>) ASCAT-C 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>c</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. ASCAT-C 12.5 km; (<b>d</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. CSCAT 25 km. Each row in the figure represents the same date but different ED comparisons, and each column in the figure represents the same ED comparison but different dates.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>The spatial distribution of EDs larger than 3 pixels in the Arctic region from May to October 2020: (<b>a</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>b</b>) ASCAT-C 12.5 km vs. AMSR2 15%; (<b>c</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. ASCAT-C 12.5 km; (<b>d</b>) CSCAT 12.5 km vs. CSCAT 25 km. Each row in the figure represents the same date but different ED comparisons, and each column in the figure represents the same ED comparison but different dates.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Daily sea ice extent of CSCAT 12.5 sampling data (red), AMSR2 at 15% sea ice concentration (black), ASCAT-C 12.5 sampling data (green), and CSCAT 25 sampling data (blue) during 2020–2022, where the solid and dashed lines represent the Arctic and Antarctic regions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Monthly average of sea ice extent difference among CSCAT 12.5 km sampling data, AMSR2 at 15% sea ice concentration, ASCAT-C 12.5 km sampling data, and CSCAT 25 km sampling data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Seasonal average of sea ice extent difference between CSCAT/ASCAT 12.5 km sampling data and AMSR2 at 15% sea ice concentration data from 2020 to 2021.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop