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 (223)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = scatterometer

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
23 pages, 5897 KiB  
Article
Evaluating the Performance of Satellite-Derived Soil Moisture Products Across South America Using Minimal Ground-Truth Assumptions in Spatiotemporal Statistical Analysis
by B. G. Mousa, Alim Samat and Hong Shu
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(5), 753; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17050753 - 21 Feb 2025
Viewed by 254
Abstract
South America (SA) features diverse land cover types and varied climate conditions, both of which significantly influence the variability of soil moisture (SMO). Obtaining ground-truth measurements for SMO is often costly and labor-intensive, and the limited number of ground SMO stations in SA [...] Read more.
South America (SA) features diverse land cover types and varied climate conditions, both of which significantly influence the variability of soil moisture (SMO). Obtaining ground-truth measurements for SMO is often costly and labor-intensive, and the limited number of ground SMO stations in SA further complicates the evaluation of satellite-derived SMO products. In this work, we proposed an approach that integrates some statistical methods to assess the reliability of Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP), the H113 dataset from the Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT), and Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) satellite-derived SMO products in SA from 14 May 2015 to 31 December 2016. The integrated methods are error metrics (correlation (R), bias, and ubiased root mean square error (ubRMSE)), Triple Collocation Method (TCM), and Hovmöller diagrams. ERA5 and GLDAS-Noah SM products were used as references for validation. The quality of SMO products was assessed by considering environmental variables, including land cover, vegetation density, and precipitation, within the different climate zones of SA. The results presented that SMAP overall outperforms SMOS and ASCAT, with the highest average correlation (0.55 with GLDAS and 0.61 with ERA5), slight average bias (−0.058 with GLDAS and −0.014 with ERA5), and lowest average ubRMSE (0.045 with GLDAS and 0.041 with ERA5). In arid, semi-arid, and moderate vegetation regions, the SMAP satellite outperforms SMOS and ASCAT, achieving better statistics values with GLDAS and ERA5 datasets, and achieving low error variance and high S/N in the TCM analysis. While the ASCAT H113 product showed good performance, which makes it a good alternative to SMAP, it still has limitations in more dense vegetation regions. SMOS showed the lowest performance across SA, especially in the Amazon basin. The Amazon basin emerges as a critical region where all SMO products displayed a significant SMO variability; however, SMAP showed slightly better results than ASCAT and SMOS. In the absence of ground truths, the proposed approach provides a better evaluation of satellite SMO products. Meanwhile, it provides new spatiotemporal statistical insights into satellite SMO retrieval performance evaluation within diverse climate zones of SA. This research provides valuable guidance for improving SMO monitoring and agricultural management in tropical and semi-arid ecosystems. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Remote Sensing for Regional Soil Moisture Monitoring)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Köppen–Geiger climate classification map for South America. Where the different climate zones are tropical (Af, Am, and Aw), dry (BWk, BWh, BSk, and BSh), temperate (Cfa, Cfb, Cfc, Csa, Csb, Csc, Cwa, Cwb, and Cwc), and polar (ET). (<b>b</b>) The land cover classification across SA. Observe that there are fewer available ground SMO stations in SA hosted by ISMN, and they are denoted by red on the map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distribution of average NDVI values. (<b>b</b>) The distribution of rainfall amounts across SA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The correlation between NDVI and rainfall across land cover types in SA. Note that the values in this chart represent NDVI average values and rainfall amounts in the unit of mm/study period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The proposed approach to investigate the performance of satellite SMO products in SA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The results of comparing satellite datasets with ERA5 across SA for the SMAP (1st column), ASCAT H113 (2nd column), and SMOS (3rd): (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) for R results, bias results (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>), and ubRMSE results (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>). The excluded results are represented by white regions on the maps.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The results of comparing satellite datasets with GLDAS across SA for the SMAP (1st column), ASCAT H113 (2nd column), and SMOS (3rd): (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) for R results, bias results (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>), and ubRMSE results (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>). The excluded results are represented by white areas on the maps.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The results of comparing SMO datasets with the ERA5 dataset across different land surface covers. SMAP (1st row), ASCAT H113 (2nd row), and SMOS (3rd row): the 1st column for R values, the 2nd column for results of bias, and the 3rd column for ubRMSE values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The results of comparing SMO datasets with the GLDAS dataset across different land surface covers. SMAP (1st row), ASCAT H113 (2nd row), and SMOS (3rd row): the 1st column for R values, the 2nd column for results of bias, and the 3rd column for ubRMSE values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The TCM analysis for satellite SMO datasets in SA, where the SMAP (1st row), ASCAT H113 (2nd row), and SMOS (3rd row): error variance (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), (S/N) [db] (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>). The excluded results are represented by white regions on the maps.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The error variance values and (S/N) [dB] estimates of satellite SMO products across the land covers of SA for SMAP (1st row), ASCAT H113 (2nd row), and SMOS (3rd row): error variance (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>), (S/N) [db] (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>). The mean values represented with red symbol.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The spatiotemporal variability of SMO products across SA from 14 May 2015 to 31 December 2016, including (<b>a</b>) ERA5, (<b>b</b>) GLDAS, (<b>c</b>) SMAP, (<b>d</b>) ASCAT H113, and (<b>e</b>) SMOS.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 3267 KiB  
Article
WindRAD Scatterometer Quality Control in Rain
by Zhen Li, Anton Verhoef and Ad Stoffelen
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(3), 560; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17030560 - 6 Feb 2025
Viewed by 331
Abstract
Rain backscatter corrupts Ku-band scatterometer wind retrieval by mixing with the signatures of the σ (backscatter measurements) on the sea surface. The measurements are sensitive to rain clouds due to the short wavelength, and the rain-contaminated measurements in a wind vector cell [...] Read more.
Rain backscatter corrupts Ku-band scatterometer wind retrieval by mixing with the signatures of the σ (backscatter measurements) on the sea surface. The measurements are sensitive to rain clouds due to the short wavelength, and the rain-contaminated measurements in a wind vector cell (WVC) deviate from the simulated measurements using the wind geophysical model function (GMF). Therefore, quality control (QC) is essential to guarantee the retrieved winds’ quality and consistency. The normalized maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) residual (Rn) is a QC indicator representing the distance between the σ measurements and the wind GMF; it works locally for one WVC. JOSS is another QC indicator. It is the speed component of the observation cost function, which is sensitive to spatial inconsistencies in the wind field. RnJ is a combined indicator, and it takes both local information (Rn) and spatial consistency (JOSS) into account. This paper focuses on the QC for WindRAD, a dual-frequency (C and Ku band) rotating-fan-beam scatterometer. The Rn and RnJ have been established and thoroughly investigated for Ku-band-only and combined C–Ku wind retrieval. An additional 0.4% of WVCs are rejected with RnJ, as compared to Rn for both Ku-band-only and combined C–Ku wind retrievals. The number of accepted WVCs with high rain rates (>7 mm/h) is reduced by half, and the wind verification with respect to ECMWF winds is generally improved. The C-band measurements are little influenced by rain, so the Ku-based Rn is more effective for the combined C–Ku wind retrieval than the total Rn from both the C and Ku bands. The rejection rate of the combined C–Ku retrievals reduces by about half compared to the Ku-band-only retrieval, with similar wind verification statistics. Therefore, adding the C band into the retrieval suppresses the rain effect, and acceptable QC capabilities can be achieved with fewer rejected winds. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Observations of Atmospheric and Oceanic Processes by Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Ku-band two-dimensional histogram of <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> as a function of the NWP wind speed (data for August 2023 to October 2023). The gray scale shows the fractional number of WVCs per <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> and the wind speed bin. The red line is the example threshold for the <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> contour plot with the wind solution closest to the ECWMF wind at different threshold: blue line V1; green line V2; red line V3 (see text). The gray scale shows the fractional number of WVCs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Rejected wind distribution within latitude [−20, 20] and their corresponding wind speed contour plots (retrieved winds versus NWP winds) for different <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> thresholds: V1 (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>), V2 (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>), V3 (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>). In (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>), the white dotted line shows the average wind speed of the NWP wind per retrieved wind, and the light purple dotted line shows the average wind speed of the retrieved wind per NWP wind.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Left panels: <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> versus accepted retrieved wind speed, collocated with rain rate. Right panels: <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> versus accepted retrieved wind speed for rain rates above 7 mm/h. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> V1, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> V2, (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> V3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Long-term (August 2023 to March 2024) V2 <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> QC rejected winds’ geographical distribution within latitude [−20<sup>∘</sup>, 20<sup>∘</sup>]) (<b>a</b>) and its corresponding wind speed contour against NWP winds ((<b>b</b>), the white dotted line is the average NWP wind speed, the pink dotted line is the average WindRAD wind speed).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Long-term statistics from August 2023 to March 2024 for tropical region (latitude [−20<sup>∘</sup>, 20<sup>∘</sup>]) between the rejected winds from the Ku-band WindRAD V2 <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> QC (scatA) and the collocated accepted winds from the C-band WindRAD (scatB): (<b>a</b>) the contour plot of rejected winds (Ku) vs. accepted winds (C), where the color bar shows the fractional number of WVCs; (<b>b</b>) the wind speed PDFs of rejected winds (Ku band) and accepted winds (C band), the white dotted line is the average NWP wind speed, the pink dotted line is the average WindRAD wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Long-term (from August 2023 to March 2024) geographical distribution of rejected winds for V2 <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> QC at latitudes within [−55<sup>∘</sup>, 60<sup>∘</sup>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The flowchart of the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> <mi>J</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> QC procedure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Ku-band <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>J</mi> <mrow> <mi>O</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> value collocated with rain as a function of the analysis wind speed. The red line is the threshold mentioned in Equation (<a href="#FD3-remotesensing-17-00560" class="html-disp-formula">3</a>). Data are from August 2023 to March 2024, with latitude [−20<sup>∘</sup>, 20<sup>∘</sup>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Geographical distribution of the rejected winds for the data from August 2023 to March 2024, with latitude [−20<sup>∘</sup>, 20<sup>∘</sup>]: (<b>a</b>) the winds rejected by <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> QC; (<b>b</b>) the winds rejected by <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>J</mi> <mrow> <mi>O</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> QC.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> contour plot of the C–Ku wind solution closest to the NWP winds, where the color bar shows the fraction of WVC numbers: (<b>a</b>) the total <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>; (<b>b</b>) the Ku contribution to <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>. The red line shows the optimal threshold (see text).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Top panels: geographical distribution of the rejected winds in the tropics [−20<sup>∘</sup>, 20<sup>∘</sup>]: (<b>a</b>) using the total <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) using the Ku-based <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>. Bottom panels: the rejected wind speed contour plot against NWP winds: (<b>c</b>) using the total <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> and (<b>d</b>) using the Ku-based <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Contour plots of rejected winds against NWP winds, using data from August 2023 to March 2024, with latitude [−20<sup>∘</sup>, 20<sup>∘</sup>]: (<b>a</b>) rejected winds using <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> QC; (<b>b</b>) rejected winds using <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>R</mi> <mi>n</mi> </msub> <mi>J</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> QC.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 1782 KiB  
Article
Frequency-Constrained QR: Signal and Image Reconstruction
by Harrison Garrett and David G. Long
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(3), 464; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17030464 - 29 Jan 2025
Viewed by 478
Abstract
Because a finite set of measurements is limited in the amount of spectral content it can represent, the reconstruction process from discrete samples is inherently band-limited. In the case of 1D sampling using ideal measurements, the maximum bandwidth of regular and irregular sampling [...] Read more.
Because a finite set of measurements is limited in the amount of spectral content it can represent, the reconstruction process from discrete samples is inherently band-limited. In the case of 1D sampling using ideal measurements, the maximum bandwidth of regular and irregular sampling is well known using Nyquist and Gröchenig sampling theorems and lemmas, respectively. However, determining the appropriate reconstruction bandwidth becomes difficult when considering 2D sampling geometries, samples with variable apertures, or signal to noise ratio limitations. Instead of determining the maximum bandwidth a priori, we derive an inverse method to simultaneously reconstruct a signal and determine its effective bandwidth. This inverse method is equivalent to incrementally computing a band-limited inverse using a frequency-constrained QR decomposition (FQR). Comparisons between reconstruction results using FQR and QR decompositions illustrate how FQR is less sensitive to noisy measurement errors, but it is more sensitive to high-frequency components. These methods are particularly useful in the reconstruction of remote sensing images from such as microwave radiometers and scatterometers. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Deconvolution example. (<b>a</b>) An example deconvolution. (<b>A</b>) Truth signal of two Dirichlet kernels and one Kronecker delta function. (<b>B</b>) Truth signal blurred by a Gaussian MRF function. (<b>C</b>) Deconvolution result after equalization with an band-limited deconvolution on a scene with 30 dB SNR additive noise. (<b>D</b>) Deconvolution result with corrupted MRF with 10 dB SNR of corruption. Note that noise limits the resolving capability and amplifies the noise floor of the deconvolution. (<b>b</b>) The equalizations of the two deconvolution examples shown in <a href="#remotesensing-17-00464-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>a. (<b>A</b>) DFT of the Gaussian MRF function. (<b>B</b>) Equalization using a band-limited inverse Gaussian at 30 dB SNR. (<b>C</b>) Equalization after adding 10 dB SNR of corruption to the Gaussian MRF function. The ideal equalization is perfectly flat at magnitude 1, corresponding to an ideal band-limited reconstruction. However, the corrupted Gaussian equalization is distorted, corresponding to the amplification and attenuation of different content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Selected portion of the sampling matrix using 3 randomly shifted MRFs. The MRFs were 4× upsampled and renormalized to make them easier to visualize in this illustration. Each MRF was normalized to sum to 1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>A</b>) Example MRFs overlaid with the truth signal. (<b>B</b>) The reconstruction from the first 3 columns of a QR decomposition (first 3 MRFs). (<b>C</b>) The reconstruction from the first 3 FQR DCT bins.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Partial reconstructions using QR and FQR decomposition. (<b>a</b>) (<b>A</b>) Example low bandwidth truth signal. (<b>B</b>) The reconstruction from the first 5, 11, and 21 columns of a QR decomposition. (<b>C</b>) The reconstruction from the first 5, 11, and 21 DCT bins of a FQR decomposition. Note that the band-limited QR reconstruction required less iterations to achieve similar results to QR. (<b>b</b>) (<b>A</b>) Example truth signal. (<b>B</b>) The reconstruction from the first 5, 11, and 21 columns of a QR decomposition. (<b>C</b>) The reconstruction from the first 5, 11, and 21 DCT bins of a FQR decomposition. Note that the FQR reconstruction uses all measurements’ frequency response for each iteration, while conventional QR reconstructs one measurement at a time.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Total reconstruction error per pixel for each of the 4 simulations. Each simulation contained noise at a 30 dB SNR level. Input 1 is the low-bandwidth signal. Input 2 is the higher frequency signal, whose average magnitude was intentionally 100× larger than Input 1 to plot these errors on the same scale. Note that in each error trend’s error, there appears a minimum between reconstruction and noise amplification.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Example 2D basis vectors using DFT, DCT-IV, and a shifted even DCT basis. The DFT basis vectors have directional components, the DCT has fractional frequency content and the shifted even DCT Basis has up to 4 radially symmetric orthogonal vectors.</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 5200 KiB  
Article
Assessing the Future ODYSEA Satellite Mission for the Estimation of Ocean Surface Currents, Wind Stress, Energy Fluxes, and the Mechanical Coupling Between the Ocean and the Atmosphere
by Marco Larrañaga, Lionel Renault, Alexander Wineteer, Marcela Contreras, Brian K. Arbic, Mark A. Bourassa and Ernesto Rodriguez
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(2), 302; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17020302 - 16 Jan 2025
Viewed by 700
Abstract
Over the past decade, several studies based on coupled ocean–atmosphere simulations have shown that the oceanic surface current feedback to the atmosphere (CFB) leads to a slow-down of the mean oceanic circulation and, overall, to the so-called eddy killing effect, i.e., a sink [...] Read more.
Over the past decade, several studies based on coupled ocean–atmosphere simulations have shown that the oceanic surface current feedback to the atmosphere (CFB) leads to a slow-down of the mean oceanic circulation and, overall, to the so-called eddy killing effect, i.e., a sink of kinetic energy from oceanic eddies to the atmosphere that damps the oceanic mesoscale activity by about 30%, with upscaling effects on large-scale currents. Despite significant improvements in the representation of western boundary currents and mesoscale eddies in numerical models, some discrepancies remain when comparing numerical simulations with satellite observations. These discrepancies include a stronger wind and wind stress response to surface currents and a larger air–sea kinetic energy flux from the ocean to the atmosphere in numerical simulations. However, altimetric gridded products are known to largely underestimate mesoscale activity, and the satellite observations operate at different spatial and temporal resolutions and do not simultaneously measure surface currents and wind stress, leading to large uncertainties in air–sea mechanical energy flux estimates. ODYSEA is a new satellite mission project that aims to simultaneously monitor total surface currents and wind stress with a spatial sampling interval of 5 km and 90% daily global coverage. This study evaluates the potential of ODYSEA to measure surface winds, currents, energy fluxes, and ocean–atmosphere coupling coefficients. To this end, we generated synthetic ODYSEA data from a high-resolution coupled ocean–wave–atmosphere simulation of the Gulf Stream using ODYSIM, the Doppler scatterometer simulator for ODYSEA. Our results indicate that ODYSEA would significantly improve the monitoring of eddy kinetic energy, the kinetic energy cascade, and air–sea kinetic energy flux in the Gulf Stream region. Despite the improvement over the current measurements, the estimates of the coupling coefficients between surface currents and wind stress may still have large uncertainties due to the noise inherent in ODYSEA, and also due to measurement capabilities related to wind stress. This study evidences that halving the measurement noise in surface currents would lead to a more accurate estimation of the surface eddy kinetic energy and wind stress coupling coefficients. Since measurement noise in surface currents strongly depends on the square root of the transmit power of the Doppler scatterometer antenna, noise levels can be reduced by increasing the antenna length. However, exploring other alternatives, such as the use of neural networks, could also be a promising approach. Additionally, the combination of wind stress estimation from ODYSEA with other satellite products and numerical simulations could improve the representation of wind stress in gridded products. Future efforts should focus on the assessment of the potential of ODYSEA in quantifying the production of eddy kinetic energy through horizontal energy fluxes and air–sea energy fluxes related to divergent and rotational motions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Snapshots of relative vorticity (<b>a</b>) (normalized by the planetary vorticity <span class="html-italic">f</span>), sea surface temperature (<b>b</b>), wind speed (<b>c</b>), and significant wave height (<b>d</b>) from the CROCO-WRF-WWIII coupled system results for 29 January 2005. The black segmented line represents the 500 m depth contour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Coupling strategy for the CROCO-WW3-WRF system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Probability distribution of wind speeds. The vertical dashed line indicates the 3 m s<sup>−1</sup> wind speed threshold. (<b>b</b>) Mean noise (colored bars) of surface currents and associated standard deviation (error bars) as a function of wind speed in the ODSL2N dataset. Noise statistics are derived from the magnitude of the latitudinal and longitudinal components of surface currents noise. The horizontal dashed line indicates the 50 cm s<sup>−1</sup> noise threshold.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of the current speed (<b>first column</b>) and wind stress (<b>second column</b>) from the different datasets obtained through the ODYSEA simulator. Examples for the ODSL2NF<sub>15km</sub>, ODSL3<sub>1.5day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub>, and ODSL3<sub>3day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub> datasets are shown across different rows.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean (<b>first column</b>) and eddy (<b>second column</b>) kinetics over the year 2005 for the reference simulation (<b>first row</b>), ODSL2NF<sub>15km</sub> (<b>second row</b>), ODSL3<sub>3day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub> (<b>third row</b>), and Altimeterlike (<b>fourth row</b>) datasets. The mean Gulf Stream system signature, composed of the Gulf Stream and the mesoscale eddies interacting with it, is depicted by the gray contour in panel (<b>b</b>), which corresponds to the 0.1 m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−2</sup> eddy kinetic energy level. The spatially averaged (bars) eddy kinetic energy over the black polygon in (<b>b</b>) is depicted for all datasets at the bottom axes. The standard deviation is indicated by the error bars.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Kinetic energy wave number spectra estimations for the reference simulation, and the Altimeterlike and ODYSEA gridded products over the black polygon depicted in <a href="#remotesensing-17-00302-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>a. Consequences related to time averages in ODYSEA are depicted in (<b>a</b>), while the consequences related to measurement noise are depicted in (<b>b</b>). Consequences related to spatial filters are depicted in (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>). The consequences of halving the measurement noise and applying a 15-km spatial filter are depicted in (<b>e</b>). Theoretical energy dissipation rates of <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mi>k</mi> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </msup> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mi>k</mi> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>3</mn> </mrow> </msup> </semantics></math> are depicted with segmented lines in (<b>a</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Mean (<b>first column</b>) and standard deviation (<b>second column</b>) of the wind stress over the year 2005 for the reference simulation (<b>first row</b>), ODSL2NF<sub>15km</sub> (<b>second row</b>), ODSL3<sub>1.5day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub> (<b>third row</b>), and QuikSCATlike (<b>fourth row</b>) datasets. The mean Gulf Stream system signature, composed by the Gulf Stream and the mesoscale eddies interacting with it, is depicted by the gray contour in panel (<b>b</b>), which corresponds to the 0.1 m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−2</sup> eddy kinetic energy level (<a href="#remotesensing-17-00302-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>b). The spatially averaged standard deviation (STD) over the black polygon in (<b>b</b>) is depicted for all datasets in the bottom panel (<b>i</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Cascade of kinetic energy. The spatially averaged cascade of kinetic energy over the black polygon in (<b>b</b>) is depicted for all datasets at the top axes. Spatial distribution of the cascade of kinetic energy at the 20 m (<b>first column</b>) and 150 m (<b>second column</b>) scales for the reference simulation (<b>second row</b>), ODSL3<sub>1.5day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub> (<b>third row</b>), and ODSL3<sub>3day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub> (<b>fourth row</b>). The spatial distribution of the cascade of kinetic energy at the 20 m scale for ODSL3<sub>3day</sub>N<sub>0.5</sub>F<sub>25km</sub> is shown in (<b>g</b>), whereas the cascade of kinetic energy at the 150 m scale for Altimeterlike is shown in (<b>i</b>). The mean Gulf Stream system signature, composed of the Gulf Stream and the mesoscale eddies interacting with it, is depicted by the gray contour in panel (<b>b</b>), which corresponds to the 0.1 m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−2</sup> eddy kinetic energy level (<a href="#remotesensing-17-00302-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The spatially averaged wind work over the black polygon in (<b>b</b>) is depicted for all datasets at the top panel. Spatial distribution of wind work at 20 m scale for reference simulation (<b>b</b>), Obslike (<b>c</b>), ODSL3<sub>1.5day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub> (<b>d</b>), and ODSL3<sub>3day</sub>NF<sub>25km</sub> (<b>e</b>). The mean Gulf Stream system signature, composed of the Gulf Stream and the mesoscale eddies interacting with it, is depicted by the gray contour in panel (<b>b</b>), which corresponds to the 0.1 m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−2</sup> eddy kinetic energy level (<a href="#remotesensing-17-00302-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mi>τ</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> coupling coefficients for the reference simulation (<b>a</b>) and the Obslike (<b>b</b>) and ODYSEA datasets (<b>c–h</b>). The mean Gulf Stream system signature, composed of the Gulf Stream and the mesoscale eddies interacting with it, is depicted by the black contour in panel (<b>b</b>), which corresponds to the 0.1 m<sup>2</sup> s<sup>−2</sup> eddy kinetic energy level (<a href="#remotesensing-17-00302-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>b). The black squared polygon delimits the Loop Current region. Spatially averaged values over the polygon depicted in (<b>a</b>) are shown in the bottom panel.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 1523 KiB  
Technical Note
Bandlimited Frequency-Constrained Iterative Methods
by Harrison Garrett and David G. Long
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(2), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17020236 - 10 Jan 2025
Viewed by 427
Abstract
Variable aperture sampling reconstruction matrices have a history of being computationally intensive due to the need to compute a full matrix inverse. In the field of remote sensing, several spaceborne radiometers and scatterometers, which have irregular sampling and variable apertures, use iterative techniques [...] Read more.
Variable aperture sampling reconstruction matrices have a history of being computationally intensive due to the need to compute a full matrix inverse. In the field of remote sensing, several spaceborne radiometers and scatterometers, which have irregular sampling and variable apertures, use iterative techniques to reconstruct measurements of the Earth’s surface. However, many of these iterative techniques tend to over-amplify noise features outside the reconstructable bandwidth. Because the reconstruction of discrete samples is inherently bandlimited, solving a bandlimited inverse can focus on recovering signal features and prevent the over-amplification of noise outside the signal bandwidth. To approximate a bandlimited inverse, we apply bandlimited constraints to several well-known iterative reconstruction techniques: Landweber iteration, additive reconstruction technique (ART), Richardson–Lucy iteration, and conjugate gradient descent. In the context of these iterative techniques, we derive an iterative method for inverting variable aperture samples, taking advantage of the regular and irregular content of variable apertures. We find that this iterative method for variable aperture reconstruction is equivalent to solving a bandlimited conjugate gradient descent algorithm. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>A</b>) Example truth signal, in black, and example variable aperture measurements, ordered by peak value, as red dots. (<b>B</b>) Example regular aperture deconvolution solution and irregular corrections iteratively found through bandlimited reconstruction. Both solutions add together to form a bandlimited estimate.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Example MRFs ordered by peak value centers. Note how this diagonal structure is similar to a Toeplitz matrix.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The short time chirp used in the simulation and the variable aperture measurements ordered by peak MRF centers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Total reconstruction error results for each iteration of CG, FQR, single-frequency BCG, and block-frequency BCG algorithms. Simulations are run both with and without a regular deconvolution initializer for comparison.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The discrete cosine transforms of the truth signal and variable aperture measurements to compare frequency contents. More than 99% of the truth signal is contained within 300 frequency bins. In this case, the variable aperture measurements extend past this limit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Bandlimited reconstruction error results for each iteration of CG, FQR, single-frequency BCG, and block-frequency BCG algorithms. Simulations are run both with and without a regular deconvolution initializer for comparison.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Selected 2D reconstructions at various iterations using the bandlimiting schemes with 10 dB noisy measurements: no step constraints (CG), block-frequency steps (block BCG), and single-2D-DCT-frequency steps (BCG). (<b>A</b>–<b>D</b>) indicate no step constraints at 10, 20, 40, and 500 iterations, respectively. (<b>E</b>–<b>H</b>) indicate block-step constraints at 100, 500, 1000, and 2000 iterations, respectively. (<b>I</b>–<b>L</b>) single-step constraints at 100, 1000, 2000, and 4000 iterations, respectively. In general, results start blurry and resolve more as further iterations are taken; however, noise is also amplified as more iterations are taken. Note that the final iterations shown for each bandlimiting scheme are approximately equivalent.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Total and bandlimited reconstruction error results for each iteration of CG, single-frequency BCG, and block-frequency BCG bandlimiting schemes repeated using 20 dB, 10 dB, and 0 dB noisy measurements. In general, the increase in noise tends to cause the minimum point of total reconstruction error to increase and be reached in fewer iterations. Note that all bandlimiting schemes converge to approximately the same reconstruction error at their max iterations. This is expected as the sampling apertures were preconditioned with a 4000 2D DCT bin bandlimit in this simulation.</p>
Full article ">
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 1466
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 778
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 1124
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 802
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 946
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 1399
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 720
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 ">
22 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 1429
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
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 675
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
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 728
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 ">
Back to TopTop