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

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Search Results (514)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = wind retrieval

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 1066 KiB  
Article
Efficient Phase Step Determination Approach for Four-Quadrant Wind Imaging Interferometer
by Tingyu Yan, William Ward, Chunmin Zhang and Shiping Guo
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(21), 4108; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16214108 - 3 Nov 2024
Viewed by 368
Abstract
A four-quadrant wind imaging interferometer is a new generation of wind imaging interferometer with the valuable features of being monolithic, compact, light, and insensitive to temporal variations in the source. Its applications include remote sensing of the wind field of the upper atmosphere [...] Read more.
A four-quadrant wind imaging interferometer is a new generation of wind imaging interferometer with the valuable features of being monolithic, compact, light, and insensitive to temporal variations in the source. Its applications include remote sensing of the wind field of the upper atmosphere and observing important dynamical processes in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. In this paper, we describe a new phase step determination approach based on the Lissajous figure, which provides an efficient, accurate, and visual method for the characterization and calibration of this type of instrument. Using the data from wavelength or thermal fringe scanning, the phase steps, relative intensities, and instrument visibilities of four quadrants can be retrieved simultaneously. A general model for the four-quadrant wind imaging interferometer is described and the noise sensitivity of this method is analyzed. This approach was successfully implemented with four-quadrant wind imaging interferometer prototypes, and its feasibility was experimentally verified. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The scheme of the four-quadrant wind imaging interferometer. (<b>a</b>) A general scheme. (<b>b</b>) The measured intensities on the detector. (<b>c</b>) The change in the interference intensity of the four sectors when the wavelength is tuned.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>An example ellipse for system parameter determination and calibration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Intensity variations of four quadrants in a wavelength scan in the calibration experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Iterative convergence process of ellipse fitting. The red circle represents the mean intensities during the convergence process, and the blue solid line is the fitted ellipse.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Convergence curve of the iteration in the phase step determination algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Retrieved phase steps relative to <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> </semantics></math> across the full field of view. (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mn>3</mn> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mn>4</mn> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Simulated phase determination using intensities generated by Equation (<a href="#FD7-remotesensing-16-04108" class="html-disp-formula">7</a>). (<b>a</b>) Generated intensities of four quadrants in a simulated wavelength scan. They were input into the phase step determination approach. (<b>b</b>) Regenerated intensities of four quadrants using the retrieved instrument parameters in the simulation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The variation in retrieved phase step errors with the SNR.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The variation in the optical path difference with environmental temperature.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The variation in the instrument visibility with the tilt angle of the four-quadrant surface.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of the initial and retrieved velocities in the simulation. The retrieved velocity slope is 1.09, with a phase step error of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>S</mi> <mi>φ</mi> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>88.87</mn> <msup> <mo form="prefix">deg</mo> <mn>2</mn> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The envelope surface of the retrieved slope varying with background phase <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>θ</mi> </semantics></math> and phase step error <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>S</mi> <mi>φ</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Measured velocity for a single point on the wind wheel is plotted versus the expected velocity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The comparison of the retrieved phase step errors between the traditional LMS method and our method based on the Lissajous figure.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 4160 KiB  
Article
Enhancing Algal Bloom Level Monitoring with CYGNSS and Sentinel-3 Data
by Yan Jia, Zhiyu Xiao, Liwen Yang, Quan Liu, Shuanggen Jin, Yan Lv and Qingyun Yan
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(20), 3915; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16203915 - 21 Oct 2024
Viewed by 655
Abstract
Algal blooms, resulting from the overgrowth of algal plankton in water bodies, pose significant environmental problems and necessitate effective remote sensing methods for monitoring. In recent years, Global Navigation Satellite System–Reflectometry (GNSS-R) has rapidly advanced and made notable contributions to many surface observation [...] Read more.
Algal blooms, resulting from the overgrowth of algal plankton in water bodies, pose significant environmental problems and necessitate effective remote sensing methods for monitoring. In recent years, Global Navigation Satellite System–Reflectometry (GNSS-R) has rapidly advanced and made notable contributions to many surface observation fields, providing new means for identifying algal blooms. Additionally, meteorological parameters such as temperature and wind speed, key factors in the occurrence of algal blooms, can aid in their identification. This paper utilized Cyclone GNSS (CYGNSS) data, Sentinel-3 OLCI data, and ECMWF Re-Analysis-5 meteorological data to retrieve Chlorophyll-a values. Machine learning algorithms were then employed to classify algal blooms for early warning based on Chlorophyll-a concentration. Experiments and validations were conducted from May 2023 to September 2023 in the Hongze Lake region of China. The results indicate that classification and early warning of algal blooms based on CYGNSS data produced reliable results. The ability of CYGNSS data to accurately reflect the severity of algal blooms opens new avenues for environmental monitoring and management. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Latest Advances and Application in the GNSS-R Field)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of averaged CYGNSS reflection points in the Hongze Lake.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flowchart of the study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flowchart of MPH to obtain <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Results of <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration retrieval based on MPH algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The map of retrieved <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration results and in situ measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relationship between retrieval results of <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration on 9 May and 14 May and measured <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration on May 11.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p><span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration values corresponding to CYGNSS reflection points, the colors (blue to red) represent increasing concentration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Accuracy of predicted <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration category by XGBoost at 1 KM resolution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Model classification confusion matrix for 2 Classes (<b>a</b>) and 3 Classes (<b>b</b>) classification criterion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Model classification confusion matrix for 4 Classes (<b>a</b>) and 5 Classes (<b>b</b>) classification criterion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Model classification confusion matrix of Guangdong local classification criterion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Accuracy of 5-fold CV of different classification methods at different spatial resolutions.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 7440 KiB  
Article
A Novel Method for the Estimation of Sea Surface Wind Speed from SAR Imagery
by Zahra Jafari, Pradeep Bobby, Ebrahim Karami and Rocky Taylor
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(10), 1881; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12101881 - 20 Oct 2024
Viewed by 620
Abstract
Wind is one of the important environmental factors influencing marine target detection as it is the source of sea clutter and also affects target motion and drift. The accurate estimation of wind speed is crucial for developing an efficient machine learning (ML) model [...] Read more.
Wind is one of the important environmental factors influencing marine target detection as it is the source of sea clutter and also affects target motion and drift. The accurate estimation of wind speed is crucial for developing an efficient machine learning (ML) model for target detection. For example, high wind speeds make it more likely to mistakenly detect clutter as a marine target. This paper presents a novel approach for the estimation of sea surface wind speed (SSWS) and direction utilizing satellite imagery through innovative ML algorithms. Unlike existing methods, our proposed technique does not require wind direction information and normalized radar cross-section (NRCS) values and therefore can be used for a wide range of satellite images when the initial calibrated data are not available. In the proposed method, we extract features from co-polarized (HH) and cross-polarized (HV) satellite images and then fuse advanced regression techniques with SSWS estimation. The comparison between the proposed model and three well-known C-band models (CMODs)—CMOD-IFR2, CMOD5N, and CMOD7—further indicates the superior performance of the proposed model. The proposed model achieved the lowest Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE), with values of 0.97 m/s and 0.62 m/s for calibrated images, and 1.37 and 0.97 for uncalibrated images, respectively, on the RCM dataset. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing Applications in Marine Environmental Monitoring)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of wind direction and wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>NRCS vs. incidence angle for different wind speeds and directions using CMOD5N and CMOD7 functions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Scatter plots of real versus calculated wind speed using (<b>a</b>) CMOD5, (<b>b</b>) CMOD-IFR, and (<b>c</b>) CMOD7 models with HH polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Scatter plots of real versus calculated wind speed using (<b>a</b>) CMOD5, (<b>b</b>) CMOD-IFR, and (<b>c</b>) CMOD7 models after compensation for polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Distribution of intensities for HH and HV polarizations at high and low wind speeds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Block diagram of proposed system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Effect of despeckling filter on RCM image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Histogram of the introduced feature extracted from calibrated data, with orange representing low wind, green representing mid wind, and purple representing high wind.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Histogram of the introduced feature extracted from uncalibrated data, with orange representing low wind, green representing mid wind, and purple representing high wind.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparisons of retrieved SSWS using concatenated models with different features from the calibrated RCM dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparisons of retrieved SSWS using concatenated models with different features from the uncalibrated RCM dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The closest region, where both RCM data and buoy station data are available.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>ERA5 vs. buoy wind speeds for the south of Greenland across all seasons in 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Testing the proposed model in the south of Greenland using buoy wind speed data.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 5623 KiB  
Article
Tropical Cyclone Wind Direction Retrieval Based on Wind Streaks and Rain Bands in SAR Images
by Zhancai Liu, Hongwei Yang, Weihua Ai, Kaijun Ren, Shensen Hu and Li Wang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(20), 3837; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16203837 - 15 Oct 2024
Viewed by 513
Abstract
Tropical cyclones (TCs) are associated with severe weather phenomena, making accurate wind field retrieval crucial for TC monitoring. SAR’s high-resolution imaging capability provides detailed information for TC observation, and wind speed calculations require wind direction as prior information. Therefore, utilizing SAR images to [...] Read more.
Tropical cyclones (TCs) are associated with severe weather phenomena, making accurate wind field retrieval crucial for TC monitoring. SAR’s high-resolution imaging capability provides detailed information for TC observation, and wind speed calculations require wind direction as prior information. Therefore, utilizing SAR images to retrieve TC wind fields is of significant importance. This study introduces a novel approach for retrieving wind direction from SAR images of TCs through the classification of TC sub-images. The method utilizes a transfer learning-based Inception V3 model to identify wind streaks (WSs) and rain bands in SAR images under TC conditions. For sub-images containing WSs, the Mexican-hat wavelet transform is applied, while for sub-images containing rain bands, an edge detection technique is used to locate the center of the TC eye and subsequently the tangent to the spiral rain bands is employed to determine the wind direction associated with the rain bands. Wind direction retrieval from 10 SAR TC images showed an RMSD of 19.52° and a correlation coefficient of 0.96 when compared with ECMWF and HRD observation wind directions, demonstrating satisfactory consistency and providing highly accurate TC wind directions. These results confirm the method’s potential applications in TC wind direction retrieval. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Example of geophysical phenomena in SAR images. The first row represents wind streaks (G), the second row depicts rain bands (I), and the third row illustrates other geophysical phenomena (A).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flowchart of retrain recognition model based on transfer learning and wind direction retrieval from TCs SAR images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The architecture of transfer learning.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The wind direction of rain band locations existing in Northern Hemisphere TCs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Accuracy and loss of training set (blue lines) and validation set (orange lines).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Sub-image recognition results of SAR TC images. “G” represents WSs, “I” represents rain bands and “A” denotes other geophysical phenomena.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Wind direction retrieval from SAR TC sub-images using 2-D Mexican-hat wavelet transform. (<b>a</b>) SAR sub-image; (<b>b</b>) The result of FFT; (<b>c</b>) The result of Mexico-hat wavelet transformation; (<b>d</b>) The wind direction of the sub-image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The Canny edge detection results for TC Douglas. The NRCS for VV and VH polarizations are presented in (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>), respectively; the rain band distributions for VV and VH polarizations are shown in (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>), respectively; the TC eye positions for VV and VH polarizations are depicted in (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The Canny edge detection results for TC Larry. The NRCS for VV and VH polarizations are presented in (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>), respectively; the rain band distributions for VV and VH polarizations are shown in (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>), respectively; the TC eye positions for VV and VH polarizations are depicted in (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Schematic diagram of wind directions with 180° ambiguity and reference wind direction. For the two predicted wind directions <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>θ</mi> <msub> <mi>p</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> </msub> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>θ</mi> <msub> <mi>p</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </msub> </semantics></math> that are aligned but point in opposite directions, the smaller the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <mi>θ</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> calculated relative to the reference wind direction <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, the closer it is to the true wind direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The wind field rotational pattern of TCs. (<b>a</b>) TCs in the Northern Hemisphere. (<b>b</b>) TCs in the Southern Hemisphere.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The wind direction retrieval results for TC Douglas, acquired on 25 July 2020. (<b>a</b>) Quick-look from the VV polarized SAR image over TC Douglas; (<b>b</b>) The wind direction retrieval results; (<b>c</b>) The ECMWF wind direction; (<b>d</b>) Comparison of the retrieved wind direction with ECMWF and HRD observation wind direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The wind direction retrieval results for TC Larry, acquired on 7 September 2021. (<b>a</b>) Quick-look from the VV polarized SAR image over TC Larry; (<b>b</b>) The wind direction retrieval results; (<b>c</b>) The ECMWF wind direction; (<b>d</b>) Comparison of the retrieved wind direction with ECMWF and HRD observation wind direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Comparison of wind directions retrieved from 10 SAR TCs images with ECMWF reanalysis and HRD observation wind directions.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 8114 KiB  
Article
Palaeoecological Conditions in the South-Eastern and Western Baltic Sea during the Last Millennium
by Ekaterina Ponomarenko, Tatiana Pugacheva and Liubov Kuleshova
Quaternary 2024, 7(4), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/quat7040044 - 14 Oct 2024
Viewed by 519
Abstract
We present the reconstruction of palaeoenvironmental conditions in the Gdansk, Bornholm, and Arkona Basins of the Baltic Sea over the last millennium. A multiproxy study (including geochemical, XRF, grain size, AMS, and micropalaeontological analyses) of five short sediment cores was performed. The relative [...] Read more.
We present the reconstruction of palaeoenvironmental conditions in the Gdansk, Bornholm, and Arkona Basins of the Baltic Sea over the last millennium. A multiproxy study (including geochemical, XRF, grain size, AMS, and micropalaeontological analyses) of five short sediment cores was performed. The relative age of the sediments was determined based on the Pb distribution along the sediment sequences, as radiocarbon dating has resulted in an excessively old age. The retrieved cores cover two comparable warm periods, the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Modern Warm Period, for which the increase in surface water productivity was reconstructed. Notably, the production of diatoms was higher during the colder periods (the Dark Ages and Little Ice Age), but this was also the case within the Modern Warm Period. In the Gdansk Basin, the initial salinity increase during the Littorina transgression started after 7.7 cal. a BP. The increased inflow activity was reconstructed during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, even in the Gdansk Basin, despite, in general, very low foraminiferal amounts and diversity. The strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation Index during this period led to the prevalence of westerly winds over the Baltic region and stronger saltwater intrusions. In the recent sediments, the reconstructed inflow frequency demonstrates a variability against the reduction trend, and a general decline compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly is seen. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of the study area and location of the coring sites. The general direction of the inflow pathways of the North Sea water is redrawn based on the combination of [<a href="#B1-quaternary-07-00044" class="html-bibr">1</a>,<a href="#B25-quaternary-07-00044" class="html-bibr">25</a>]. Bathymetry data are taken from the Baltic Sea Bathymetry Database v0.9.3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Lithological composition of the studied cores together with the Pb distribution. Colours are identified as codes in accordance with the Munsell Soil Color Chart. The AMS dates are indicated in blue, while the Pb dates (isochrones) are in purple. The shaded purple areas on the Pb curves mark the Modern Pb pollution and the uncertainties in the inception of the Medieval Pb pollution. In the lower right part, the Pb distribution over the last 2000 years is represented, based on the combined data [<a href="#B96-quaternary-07-00044" class="html-bibr">96</a>,<a href="#B98-quaternary-07-00044" class="html-bibr">98</a>,<a href="#B100-quaternary-07-00044" class="html-bibr">100</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The variability of sediment geochemistry (LOI and XRF), micropalaeontological, and grain size (SS mean size and content) data in the cores retrieved in the Gdansk, Bornholm, and Arkona Basins. <span class="html-italic">Elphidium</span> spp. includes both calcareous shells and IOLs (inner organic linings). Warm climate periods are shaded in light red. The Main Holocene climate events are marked as follows: DA—Dark Ages; MCA—Medieval Climate Anomaly; LIA—Little Ice Age; MoWP—Modern Warm Period. The reconstructed NAO Index during the last c. 1.5 kyr is represented according to [<a href="#B33-quaternary-07-00044" class="html-bibr">33</a>,<a href="#B102-quaternary-07-00044" class="html-bibr">102</a>]. The shaded blue areas indicate periods of a negative NAO phase.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 3196 KiB  
Article
A Cooperative Control Method for Wide-Range Maneuvering of Autonomous Aerial Refueling Controllable Drogue
by Jinxin Bai and Zhongjie Meng
Aerospace 2024, 11(10), 845; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11100845 - 14 Oct 2024
Viewed by 487
Abstract
In the realm of autonomous aerial refueling missions for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the controllable drogue represents a novel approach that significantly enhances both the safety and efficiency of aerial refueling operations. This paper delves into the issue of wide-range maneuverability control for [...] Read more.
In the realm of autonomous aerial refueling missions for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the controllable drogue represents a novel approach that significantly enhances both the safety and efficiency of aerial refueling operations. This paper delves into the issue of wide-range maneuverability control for the controllable drogue. Initially, a dynamic model for the variable-length hose–drogue system is presented. Based on this, a cooperative control framework that synergistically utilizes both the hose and the drogue is designed to achieve wide-range maneuverability of the drogue. To address the delay in hose retrieval and release, an open-loop control strategy based on neural networks is proposed. Furthermore, a closed-loop control method utilizing fuzzy approximation and adaptive error estimation is designed to tackle the challenges posed by modeling inaccuracies and uncertainties in aerodynamic parameters. Comparative simulation results show that the proposed control strategy can make the drogue maneuvering range reach more than 6 m. And it can accurately track the time-varying trajectory under the influence of model uncertainty and wind disturbance with an error of less than 0.1 m throughout. This method provides an effective means for achieving wide-range maneuverability control of the controllable drogue in autonomous aerial refueling missions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Aeronautics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of the hose–drogue system in the AAR mission.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Side view (<b>left</b>) and front view (<b>right</b>) of the controllable drogue.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Cooperative control method for the controllable drogue.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Structure of GRU neural network (<b>left</b>) and training process (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Variation in wind disturbance (<b>left</b>) and the drogue’s aerodynamic parameters (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Drogue positions (<b>left</b>) and hose length and strut angles (<b>right</b>) in simulation I.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Drogue attitude (<b>left</b>) and upper bound of ε (<b>right</b>) in simulation I.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Drogue positions (<b>left</b>) and hose length and strut angles (<b>right</b>) in simulation II.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 2587 KiB  
Article
Prediction of Ionospheric Scintillations Using Machine Learning Techniques during Solar Cycle 24 across the Equatorial Anomaly
by Sebwato Nasurudiin, Akimasa Yoshikawa, Ahmed Elsaid and Ayman Mahrous
Atmosphere 2024, 15(10), 1213; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15101213 - 11 Oct 2024
Viewed by 559
Abstract
Ionospheric scintillation is a pressing issue in space weather studies due to its diverse effects on positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems. Developing an accurate and timely prediction model for this event is crucial. In this work, we developed two machine learning models [...] Read more.
Ionospheric scintillation is a pressing issue in space weather studies due to its diverse effects on positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems. Developing an accurate and timely prediction model for this event is crucial. In this work, we developed two machine learning models for the prediction of ionospheric scintillation events at the equatorial anomaly during the maximum and minimum phases of solar cycle 24. The models developed in this study are the Random Forest (RF) algorithm and the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm. The models take inputs based on the solar wind parameters obtained from the OMNI Web database from the years 2010–2017 and Pc5 wave power obtained from the Bear Island (BJN) magnetometer station. We retrieved data from the Scintillation Network and Decision Aid (SCINDA) receiver in Egypt from which the S4 index was computed to quantify amplitude scintillations that were utilized as the target in the model development. Out-of-sample model testing was performed to evaluate the prediction accuracy of the models on unseen data after training. The similarity between the observed and predicted scintillation events, quantified by the R2 score, was 0.66 and 0.74 for the RF and XGBoost models, respectively. The corresponding Root Mean Square Errors (RMSEs) associated with the models were 0.01 and 0.01 for the RF and XGBoost models, respectively. The similarity in error shows that the XGBoost model is a good and preferred choice for the prediction of ionospheric scintillation events at the equatorial anomaly. With these results, we recommend the use of ensemble learning techniques for the study of the ionospheric scintillation phenomenon. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Planetary Atmospheres)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>A schematic diagram of the RF model used to predict S4 events. To improve the precision of scintillation event predictions, the data are split up into decision trees, and the overall choice of each tree is combined.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Pc5 pulsations extracted from the BJN station together with the S4 from the SCINDA station. From top to bottom: (<b>a</b>) Pc5 pulsations extracted from BJN station; (<b>b</b>) S4 from the SCINDA station; (<b>c</b>) wavelet-based analysis of the Pc5 pulsation; (<b>d</b>) wavelet-based analysis of the S4.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Statistical correlation of Pc5 events and S4 and their correlation with the Kp index. The Kp index is represented by the line plot and the blue and orange graphs represent the Pc5 and S4 events respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Linear regression plot of the ML models during the training phase; (<b>a</b>) the RF model; (<b>b</b>) the XGBoost model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
<p>Linear regression plot of the ML models during the training phase; (<b>a</b>) the RF model; (<b>b</b>) the XGBoost model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Regression metric of the out-of-sample testing phase of the models; (<b>a</b>) RF model; (<b>b</b>) XGBOST model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Regression metric of the out-of-sample testing phase of the models; (<b>a</b>) RF model; (<b>b</b>) XGBOST model.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 6042 KiB  
Article
A Methodology Based on Deep Learning for Contact Detection in Radar Images
by Rosa Gonzales Martínez, Valentín Moreno, Pedro Rotta Saavedra, César Chinguel Arrese and Anabel Fraga
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(19), 8644; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14198644 - 25 Sep 2024
Viewed by 1178
Abstract
Ship detection, a crucial task, relies on the traditional CFAR (Constant False Alarm Rate) algorithm. However, this algorithm is not without its limitations. Noise and clutter in radar images introduce significant variability, hampering the detection of objects on the sea surface. The algorithm’s [...] Read more.
Ship detection, a crucial task, relies on the traditional CFAR (Constant False Alarm Rate) algorithm. However, this algorithm is not without its limitations. Noise and clutter in radar images introduce significant variability, hampering the detection of objects on the sea surface. The algorithm’s theoretically Constant False Alarm Rates are not upheld in practice, particularly when conditions change abruptly, such as with Beaufort wind strength. Moreover, the high computational cost of signal processing adversely affects the detection process’s efficiency. In previous work, a four-stage methodology was designed: The first preprocessing stage consisted of image enhancement by applying convolutions. Labeling and training were performed in the second stage using the Faster R-CNN architecture. In the third stage, model tuning was accomplished by adjusting the weight initialization and optimizer hyperparameters. Finally, object filtering was performed to retrieve only persistent objects. This work focuses on designing a specific methodology for ship detection in the Peruvian coast using commercial radar images. We introduce two key improvements: automatic cropping and a labeling interface. Using artificial intelligence techniques in automatic cropping leads to more precise edge extraction, improving the accuracy of object cropping. On the other hand, the developed labeling interface facilitates a comparative analysis of persistence in three consecutive rounds, significantly reducing the labeling times. These enhancements increase the labeling efficiency and enhance the learning of the detection model. A dataset consisting of 60 radar images is used for the experiments. Two classes of objects are considered, and cross-validation is applied in the training and validation models. The results yield a value of 0.0372 for the cost function, a recovery rate of 94.5%, and an accuracy rate of 95.1%, respectively. This work demonstrates that the proposed methodology can generate a high-performance model for contact detection in commercial radar images. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Computing and Artificial Intelligence)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Detection system processes flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Processes of plot extractor phase flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Radar system architecture.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Methodology flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Preprocessing and enhancement phase flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Radar image structure as matrix. Each column is an azimuth, and each row is the distance value given to all azimuths. Each index row starts with 0.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Representation of a convolution in 1 dimension. * has been placed to represent the output value of the corresponding vector at that index, after convolution. Example: x1* is equal to the resulting convolution at the index where x1 was without *.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Gaussian distribution with different standard deviations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>Left</b>) Sperry Marine radar raw image. (<b>Right</b>) Resultant normalized image after the preprocessing and enhancement phase.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Automatic cropping flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Images of cutouts of objects.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Object labeling interface. The red box above corresponds to a zoom section in the radar image, this zoom section is displayed at the bottom of the figure. The blue boxes at the bottom of the figure represent regions of the radar image where it is possible to find a plot. The red box at the bottom is used to frame a current plot. On the right hand side we visualise this plot framed with red and check with the previous and next lap whether at the same location, at these coordinates, the same plot exists as a persistence criterion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Training process flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Criteria filtering phase flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Predictions of marine vessels in the port of Callao, Perú using the Faster R-CNN model (100,000 epochs).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Predictions in bounding boxes with the label and the confidence score.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Confidencescores for both object classes “plot” and “no”.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 6642 KiB  
Article
Performance of the Earth Explorer 11 SeaSTAR Mission Candidate for Simultaneous Retrieval of Total Surface Current and Wind Vectors
by Adrien C. H. Martin, Christine P. Gommenginger, Daria Andrievskaia, Petronilo Martin-Iglesias and Alejandro Egido
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(19), 3556; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16193556 - 24 Sep 2024
Viewed by 837
Abstract
Interactions between ocean surface currents, winds and waves at the atmosphere-ocean interface are key controls of lateral and vertical exchanges of water, heat, carbon, gases and nutrients in the global Earth System. The SeaSTAR satellite mission concept proposes to better quantify and understand [...] Read more.
Interactions between ocean surface currents, winds and waves at the atmosphere-ocean interface are key controls of lateral and vertical exchanges of water, heat, carbon, gases and nutrients in the global Earth System. The SeaSTAR satellite mission concept proposes to better quantify and understand these important dynamic processes by measuring two-dimensional fields of total surface current and wind vectors with unparalleled spatial and temporal resolution (1 × 1 km2 or finer, 1 day) and unmatched precision over one continuous wide swath (100 km or more). This paper presents a comprehensive numerical analysis of the expected performance of the Earth Explorer 11 (EE11) SeaSTAR mission candidate in the case of idealised and realistic 2D ocean currents and wind fields. A Bayesian framework derived from satellite scatterometry is adapted and applied to SeaSTAR’s bespoke inversion scheme that simultaneously retrieves total surface current vectors (TSCV) and ocean surface vector winds (OSVW). The results confirm the excellent performance of the EE11 SeaSTAR concept, with Root Mean Square Errors (RMSE) for TSCV and OSVW at 1 × 1 km2 resolution consistently better than 0.1 m/s and 0.4 m/s, respectively. The analyses highlight some performance degradation in some relative wind directions, particularly marked at near range and low wind speeds. Retrieval uncertainties are also reported for several variations around the SeaSTAR baseline three-azimuth configuration, indicating that RMSEs improve only marginally (by ∼0.01 m/s for TSCV) when including broadside Radial Surface Velocity or broadside dual-polarisation data in the inversion. In contrast, our results underscore (a) the critical need to include broadside Normalised Radar Cross Section data in the inversion; (b) the rapid performance degradation when broadside incidence angles become steeper than 20° from nadir; and (c) the benefits of maintaining ground squint angle separation between fore and aft lines-of-sight close to 90°. The numerical results are consistent with experimental performance estimates from airborne data and confirm that the EE11 SeaSTAR concept satisfies the requirements of the mission objectives. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Example of SeaSTAR vectorial fields of (<b>top</b>) Total Surface Current Vectors (TSCV) and (<b>bottom</b>) Ocean Surface Vector Winds (OSVW) at 1 × 1 km<sup>2</sup> resolution on a typical 150 × 150 km<sup>2</sup> scene over Ouessant Island in the Iroise Sea, west of French Brittany. Left panels show the “true” TSCV and OSVW taken from the Coastal and Regional Ocean Community model (<a href="https://www.croco-ocean.org" target="_blank">https://www.croco-ocean.org</a>, accessed on 1 June 2023) that was input to the SeaSTAR simultaneous inversion presented in <a href="#sec3-remotesensing-16-03556" class="html-sec">Section 3</a>. Right panels show the retrieved 1 × 1 km<sup>2</sup> resolution Level-2 TSCV and OSVW output from the SeaSTAR simultaneous inversion. Small white dots are flagged data for which no viable minimum was found. These results are discussed in <a href="#sec4dot2-remotesensing-16-03556" class="html-sec">Section 4.2</a>. Note the vectorial fields were sub-sampled to every 5 × 5 pixels for clarity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic view of SeaSTAR’s three-beam acquisition geometry, showing the satellite at three different moments in times to illustrate how the same ocean scene is viewed successively in three different lines-of-sight by the (green) FORE, (grey) MID and (red) AFT beams. In the FORE and AFT directions, the scene is observed by two SAR beams from the pairs of antennas separated along-track, each pair pointing FORE or AFT (not shown for clarity).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Geophysical Model Functions for (<b>top</b>) NRCS and (<b>bottom</b>) RSV Wind-wave induced Artefact Surface Velocity showing the dependence on (<b>left</b>) relative azimuth wind direction and (<b>right</b>) wind speed. Upwind is 0°. Downwind is 180°. Line colours represent incidence angles (20°, 30° and 40°). On the left panels, line thickness represents wind speed (5, 9 and 15 m/s). On the right panels, solid, dashed and dotted lines refer to upwind, crosswind and downwind. Thick and thin lines correspond to VV and HH polarisation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Sensitivity to relative wind direction of different terms of the inversion (<b>left</b>) NRCS (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msup> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), (<b>middle</b>) RSV (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <mi>R</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>V</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>) and (<b>right</b>) full NRCS + RSV. <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denotes the wind direction relative to the satellite heading. The first, second and third rows show, respectively, sensitivity results at near, mid and far ranges. The satellite heading is (0°), the squinted antennas are oriented at 45° (fore) and 135° (aft) in azimuth. In the <b>left</b> and <b>middle</b> panels: blue, orange and green lines indicate the sensitivity with only the fore, only the aft and only the broadside direction; red indicates the sensitivity with the two squinted beams (fore + aft); in (<b>left</b>) and (<b>mid</b>) black lines indicate the total sensitivity with all three beams. In the <b>right</b> panels, black (plain and dashed) lines and the red dashed line are reproduced from the <b>left</b> and <b>mid</b> panels. The red and purple solid lines show, respectively, the sensitivity for combined three-beams NRCS plus squinted beams RSV and for the full three-beams (NRCS + RSV). The sensitivity is measured in degree<sup>−2</sup>. Wind speed = 5 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Numerical framework used to evaluate SeaSTAR Level 2 retrieval performance in EE11 Phase 0.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>Left</b>) SeaSTAR simulated performance in EE11 Phase 0 for L2 TSCV at 1 km<sup>2</sup> for idealised uniform TSCV and OSVW input fields, shown as RMSE of TSCV across the swath for different wind directions (coloured lines). Input TSCV is 0.6 m/s flowing to 150 degrees, OSVW is constant 5 m/s. The colour wheel inset shows the SeaSTAR three look directions relative to different wind vectors. Instrument specifications are those in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. The thick dotted red line indicates the 0.1 m/s mission requirement for L2 TSCV at 1 km<sup>2</sup>. The thick solid and dashed black lines are the mean and median RMSE for TSCV averaged over all wind directions. (<b>Right</b>) SeaSTAR simulated performance in EE11 Phase 0 for L2 TSCV and OSVW at 1 km<sup>2</sup> shown as the mean RMSE (averaged over all wind directions) across the swath for TSCV and OSVW velocity, vector (left y-axis) and direction (right y-axis). Blue lines relate to TSCV, orange lines to OSVW. Thick, dotted and thin lines represent RMSE of vector, velocity and direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>SeaSTAR simulated L1B images for realistic currents and winds in Iroise Sea near Ouessant for the (<b>top</b>) fore, (<b>middle</b>) broadside and (<b>bottom</b>) aft lines-of-sight. (<b>Left</b>) Simulated L1B images of Normalised Radar Cross Section (<b>Right</b>) Simulated L1B images of Radial Surface Velocity. Instrument configuration and specifications are shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>SeaSTAR simulated performance in EE11 Phase 0 for L2 TSCV at 1 km<sup>2</sup> shown as the mean RMSE (averaged over all wind directions) across the swath for TSCV vector for different SeaSTAR instrument configurations. The red dashed line represents the 0.1 m/s mission requirements for TSCV. Different instrument configurations are identified by the labels in the legend and described in <a href="#sec4dot3-remotesensing-16-03556" class="html-sec">Section 4.3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Sensitivity of NRCS to relative wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msup> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), with <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denoting the wind direction, relative to the satellite’s north-heading, at, respectively, (<b>1st row</b>) 5 m/s, (<b>2nd row</b>) 9 m/s and (<b>last row</b>) 15 m/s wind speed for a range corresponding to incidence angle for the broadside beam of (<b>left</b>) 20°, (<b>mid</b>) 28.4°, (<b>right</b>) 33.4°. Squinted antennas are oriented for SeaSTAR phase 0 as defined in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. Same legend as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1 Cont.
<p>Sensitivity of NRCS to relative wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msup> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), with <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denoting the wind direction, relative to the satellite’s north-heading, at, respectively, (<b>1st row</b>) 5 m/s, (<b>2nd row</b>) 9 m/s and (<b>last row</b>) 15 m/s wind speed for a range corresponding to incidence angle for the broadside beam of (<b>left</b>) 20°, (<b>mid</b>) 28.4°, (<b>right</b>) 33.4°. Squinted antennas are oriented for SeaSTAR phase 0 as defined in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. Same legend as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Sensitivity of RSV/WASV to relative wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <mi>R</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>V</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), with <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denoting the wind direction, relative to the satellite’s north-heading, at, respectively, (<b>1st row</b>) 5 m/s, (<b>2nd row</b>) 9 m/s and (<b>last row</b>) 15 m/s wind speed for a range corresponding to incidence angle for the broadside beam of (<b>left</b>) 20°, (<b>mid</b>) 28.4°, (<b>right</b>) 33.4°. Squinted antennas are oriented for SeaSTAR phase 0 as defined in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. Same legend as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Sensitivity of combined NRCS + WASV to relative wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msup> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <mi>R</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>V</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), with <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denoting the wind direction, relative to the satellite’s north-heading, at, respectively, (<b>1st row</b>) 5 m/s, (<b>2nd row</b>) 9 m/s and (<b>last row</b>) 15 m/s wind speed for at range corresponding to incidence angle for the broadside beam of (<b>left</b>) 20°, (<b>mid</b>) 28.4°, (<b>right</b>) 33.4°. Squinted antennas are oriented for SeaSTAR phase 0 as defined in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. Same legend as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>Sensitivity of (top) NRCS, (middle) WASV, (bottom) combined NRCS + WASV to relative wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msup> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <mi>R</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>V</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), with <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denoting the wind direction, relative to the satellite’s north-heading, for a low wind speed of 5 m/s at range corresponding to incidence angle for the broadside beam of (<b>left</b>) 20°, (<b>mid</b>) 28.4°, (<b>right</b>) 33.4°. Squinted antennas are oriented as for “Squint29” as defined in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>. Same legend as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A4 Cont.
<p>Sensitivity of (top) NRCS, (middle) WASV, (bottom) combined NRCS + WASV to relative wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msup> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∂</mo> <mi>R</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mi>V</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mo>∂</mo> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), with <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>u</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denoting the wind direction, relative to the satellite’s north-heading, for a low wind speed of 5 m/s at range corresponding to incidence angle for the broadside beam of (<b>left</b>) 20°, (<b>mid</b>) 28.4°, (<b>right</b>) 33.4°. Squinted antennas are oriented as for “Squint29” as defined in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>. Same legend as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A5
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-03556-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>-left but for the different instrument variations defined in <a href="#sec4dot3-remotesensing-16-03556" class="html-sec">Section 4.3</a>. Instrument configurations are indicated in each figure’s header.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 10343 KiB  
Article
Exploration of Deep-Learning-Based Error-Correction Methods for Meteorological Remote-Sensing Data: A Case Study of Atmospheric Motion Vectors
by Hang Cao, Hongze Leng, Jun Zhao, Xiaodong Xu, Jinhui Yang, Baoxu Li, Yong Zhou and Lilan Huang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(18), 3522; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16183522 - 23 Sep 2024
Viewed by 885
Abstract
Meteorological satellite remote sensing is important for numerical weather forecasts, but its accuracy is affected by many things during observation and retrieval, showing that it can be improved. As a standard way to measure wind from space, atmospheric motion vectors (AMVs) are used. [...] Read more.
Meteorological satellite remote sensing is important for numerical weather forecasts, but its accuracy is affected by many things during observation and retrieval, showing that it can be improved. As a standard way to measure wind from space, atmospheric motion vectors (AMVs) are used. They are separate pieces of information spread out in the troposphere, which gives them more depth than regular surface or sea surface wind measurements. This makes rectifying problems more difficult. For error correction, this research builds a deep-learning model that is specific to AMVs. The outcomes show that AMV observational errors are greatly reduced after correction. The root mean square error (RMSE) drops by almost 40% compared to ERA5 true values. Among these, the optimization of solar observation errors exceeds 40%; the discrepancies at varying atmospheric pressure altitudes are notably improved; the degree of optimization for data with low QI coefficients is substantial; and there remains potential for enhancement in data with high QI coefficients. Furthermore, there has been a significant enhancement in the consistency coefficient of the wind’s physical properties. In the assimilation forecasting experiments, the corrected AMV data demonstrated superior forecasting performance. With more training, the model can fix things better, and the changes it makes last for a long time. The results show that it is possible and useful to use deep learning to fix errors in meteorological remote-sensing data. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The horizontal distribution of the upper-level water vapor channel (<b>a</b>), C009), mid-level water vapor channel (<b>b</b>), C010), and infrared channel (<b>c</b>), C012) data at 00 UTC on 1 January 2020, and the vertical distribution of AMV data volume from 1 to 31 January for the three channels (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Reanalysis data schematic (ERA5, 500 hPa U-Wind (m/s) stratified by atmospheric pressure; the color gradient represents wind speed).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Bilinear interpolation diagram. (The red dots represent the location of ERA5 data, the green dots represent the location of AMV data, and the blue dots represent the intermediate values.)</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Multi-task network schematic diagram (arrows represent data flow, circles represent different hidden layers).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Temporal branch network (based on the transformer network).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The schematic diagram of the multi-scale feature analysis temporal branch network (hidden layers represent the transformer network, as shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03522-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Spatial branch network (based on Convolutional Neural Networks, the white squares represent the input and output datasets, and the blue squares represent the data undergoing convolution operations).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Model-training process (yellow rectangles and green circles respectively represent hidden layers in the two branch models).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Schematic diagram of the assimilation region. (The red blocks represent the nested areas of the model).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>RMSE comparison between data before correction and data after correction against ERA5 data in Month 8 (purple, data after correction; pink, data before correction). C009 represents the high-level water vapor channel, C010 denotes the low-level water vapor channel, and water vapor channel data mainly focus on the mid-to-upper troposphere. C012 represents the infrared channel, with data primarily concentrated in the mid-level troposphere.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>RMSE comparison between data before correction and data after correction against ERA5 data in Month 11 (purple, data after correction; pink, data before correction). C009 characterizes the high-level water vapor channel, C010 represents the low-level water vapor channel, and water vapor channel data mainly focus on the mid-to-upper troposphere. C012 denotes the infrared channel, with data primarily concentrated in the mid-level troposphere.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Error distribution of the upper-level water vapor channel AMVs U and V wind vectors compared to ERA5 data before and after correction on 1 November, 2022, (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) represents the error distribution of U and V wind vectors before correction, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) represents the error distribution after correction).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Wind speed distribution of the three-channel AMV data compared to ERA5 data before and after correction on 1 November, 2022, (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) represents before correction, (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) represents after correction, with color representing data density; the darker the color, the more data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>RMSE comparison between data before correction and data after correction at different atmospheric pressure levels against ERA5 data (red, data before correction; blue, data after correction; green, data volume at respective pressure levels).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>RMSE comparison between data before correction and data after correction at different QI against ERA5 data (red, data before correction; blue, data after correction; green, data volume at respective QI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Consistency coefficient comparison between data before correction and data after correction against ERA5 data (dotted line, data before correction; solid line, data after correction). C009 represents the high-level water vapor channel, C010 represents the low-level water vapor channel, and water vapor channel data mainly focus on the mid-to-upper troposphere. C012 represents the infrared channel, with data primarily concentrated in the mid-level troposphere.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Analysis of model correction results with training data of different periods (red represents the original root mean square error, green represents the root mean square error corrected by the model trained with 6 months of data, pink represents the root mean square error corrected by the model trained with 12 months of data, and blue represents the root mean square error corrected by the model trained with 24 months of data).</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Vertical profiles of root mean square error (RMSE) for the three-dimensional variational assimilation experiment results of AMVs data before and after correction for different channels (U wind vector: (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>i</b>,<b>m</b>); V wind vector: (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>j</b>,<b>n</b>); temperature: (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>k</b>,<b>o</b>); relative humidity: (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>l</b>,<b>p</b>); blue represents the C009 channel, green represents the C010 channel, purple represents the C012 channel, and red represents the multi-channel fusion; solid lines represent pre-correction data, dashed lines represent post-correction data).</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Loss and gradient functions in the assimilation experiments before and after correction for C009 channel data (AC-AMVs represent the corrected AMV data, BC-AMVs represent the pre-correction AMV data).</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Comparison of multi-channel fusion before and after improvement on 1 November, 2022: (<b>a</b>) is the U wind vector, (<b>b</b>) is the V wind vector, (<b>c</b>) is the temperature, (<b>d</b>) is the relative humidity; BC-ALL means before correction, AC-ALL means after correction, NF-ALL means new fusion method.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 4848 KiB  
Article
Summer Chukchi Sea Near-Surface Salinity Variability in Satellite Observations and Ocean Models
by Semyon A. Grodsky, Nicolas Reul and Douglas Vandemark
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(18), 3397; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16183397 - 12 Sep 2024
Viewed by 655
Abstract
The Chukchi Sea is an open estuary in the southwestern Arctic. Its near-surface salinities are higher than those of the surrounding open Arctic waters due to the key inflow of saltier and warmer Pacific waters through the Bering Strait. This salinity distribution may [...] Read more.
The Chukchi Sea is an open estuary in the southwestern Arctic. Its near-surface salinities are higher than those of the surrounding open Arctic waters due to the key inflow of saltier and warmer Pacific waters through the Bering Strait. This salinity distribution may suggest that interannual changes in the Bering Strait mass transport are the sole and dominant factor shaping the salinity distribution in the downstream Chukchi Sea. Using satellite sea surface salinity (SSS) retrievals and altimetry-based estimates of the Bering Strait transport, the relationship between the Strait transport and Chukchi Sea SSS distributions is analyzed from 2010 onward, focusing on the ice-free summer to fall period. A comparison of five different satellite SSS products shows that anomalous SSS spatially averaged over the Chukchi Sea during the ice-free period is consistent among them. Observed interannual temporal change in satellite SSS is confirmed by comparison with collocated ship-based thermosalinograph transect datasets. Bering Strait transport variability is known to be driven by the local meridional wind stress and by the Pacific-to-Arctic sea level gradient (pressure head). This pressure head, in turn, is related to an Arctic Oscillation-like atmospheric mean sea level pattern over the high-latitude Arctic, which governs anomalous zonal winds over the Chukchi Sea and affects its sea level through Ekman dynamics. Satellite SSS anomalies averaged over the Chukchi Sea show a positive correlation with preceding months’ Strait transport anomalies. This correlation is confirmed using two longer (>40-year), separate ocean data assimilation models, with either higher- (0.1°) or lower-resolution (0.25°) spatial resolution. The relationship between the Strait transport and Chukchi Sea SSS anomalies is generally stronger in the low-resolution model. The area of SSS response correlated with the Strait transport is located along the northern coast of the Chukotka Peninsula in the Siberian Coastal Current and adjacent zones. The correlation between wind patterns governing Bering Strait variability and Siberian Coastal Current variability is driven by coastal sea level adjustments to changing winds, in turn driving the Strait transport. Due to the Chukotka coastline configuration, both zonal and meridional wind components contribute. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Remote Sensing in Coastline Monitoring)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>September climatological SSS and standard deviation of monthly SSS from (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) satellite SMAP data (2015–2024), (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) high-resolution RARE1 (1980–2021) ocean reanalysis, and (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) low-resolution SODA (1980–2015) ocean reanalysis. Anadyr Current (1), Alaska Coastal Current (2), and Siberian Coastal Current (3) are sketched in (<b>e</b>). Chukchi Sea (180–200°E, 66–73°N) and Bering Strait (190–192.5°E, 65–66.5°N) box areas are shown in (<b>c</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>September–October SSS anomaly (SSSA) from (<b>a</b>) four different satellite salinity products averaged over the Chukchi Sea box and (<b>b</b>) TSG transects averaged over (65.5°–70°N, 170°–167°W) domain. Bars for different satellite products are shifted in (<b>a</b>) to avoid overlapping. X-ticks correspond to Jan. See <a href="#sec2-remotesensing-16-03397" class="html-sec">Section 2</a> for description of satellite datasets. For each satellite dataset, the seasonal cycle of SSS is calculated based on the SMAP period since 2015.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>September (<b>a</b>–<b>i</b>) SMAP SSS, (<b>j</b>–<b>r</b>) ancillary SST from the Canada Meteorological Center (CMC) included in SMAP version 6.0. (<b>s</b>–<b>zz</b>) May–August de-trended multi-satellite sea level anomaly (SSHA).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>September SSS anomaly (SSSA) averaged over the Chukchi Sea box versus May–August along channel geostrophic velocity component (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) averaged over the Bering Strait box from the AVISO all-satellite altimeter analysis. Each symbol represents the mean of up to five satellite datasets shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03397-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a>a, while vertical bars represent their STD. See <a href="#remotesensing-16-03397-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>c for the locations of the two boxes. Symbol colors correspond to years. Linear regression (solid), <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msubsup> <mrow> <mn>0.11</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0.03</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>0.19</mn> </mrow> </msubsup> <mo>⋅</mo> <mo> </mo> <mi>v</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> explains ~40% of SSSA variance, where subscripts are the 95% confidence interval of the regression coefficient.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial and (<b>b</b>) temporal parts of the leading EOF of May–August monthly de-trended SSH anomalies (SSHA) from satellite altimetry (1993–2023, ~53% of explained variance). EOF is computed for grid points with at least half of ice-free data. (<b>c</b>) SSHA averaged over the Chukchi Sea box (black in a, the same as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03397-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>c).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Time regression of May–August anomalies of (<b>a</b>) Chukchi Sea SSHA, (<b>b</b>) Bering Strait northward wind (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mn>10</mn> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) with atmospheric mean sea level pressure anomaly (MSLPA) elsewhere. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) Time series of May–August mean SSHA and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mn>10</mn> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Values in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) show MSLPA (mbar) corresponding to one STD of SSHA and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mn>10</mn> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>, respectively. Panel (<b>c</b>) is the same as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03397-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>c.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Monthly (May–August) Bering Strait geostrophic velocity anomaly (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) from satellite altimetry vs. (<b>a</b>) Bering Strait meridional wind anomaly (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mn>10</mn> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) and (<b>c</b>) Chukchi Sea surface height anomaly (SSHA). Velocity anomaly components (<b>b</b>) due to wind (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>w</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>), and (<b>d</b>) Chukchi Sea SSHA (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>), which are calculated by subtracting signals linearly correlated with SSHA and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> <mn>10</mn> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Chukchi Sea SSS anomaly temporally regressed on BS salinity transport anomaly components due to (<b>a</b>) pressure head (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mo>′</mo> </mrow> </msubsup> <mo>⋅</mo> <mo>Δ</mo> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>), (<b>b</b>) meridional winds over the Strait (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <msub> <mrow> <mo>′</mo> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>w</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>⋅</mo> <mo>Δ</mo> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>), and (<b>c</b>) salinity variations in the Strait (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mo>⋅</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mo>′</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>). Magnitudes correspond to one standard deviation of the respective Bering Strait forcing factor. Inlays show vertical profiles of salinity response in red (Chukotka) and blue (eastern Chukchi Sea) boxes shown in (<b>c</b>). Eastern box vertical profiles are not shown in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) due to negligible response magnitudes. Data are from 1980–2021 RARE1 ocean reanalysis. Points with fewer than 20 examples of September ice-free data are blanked. The geographic grid is drawn with 10° and 5° intervals in longitude and latitude, respectively, starting from 170°E, 60°N.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The same as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03397-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> but for lower-resolution SODA3 reanalysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Seasonal cycle of total (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) and geostrophic (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>g</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) at the surface averaged across Bering Strait along 65.75N. (<b>b</b>) Scatter diagram of Bering Strait volume transport anomaly with total (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) and geostrophic (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>g</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) monthly anomalies. Because both velocity anomalies are linearly correlated with Bering Strait (BS) transport anomalies, they also are mutually correlated, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>g</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.63</mn> <mo>⋅</mo> <mi>v</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Regression of (<b>a</b>) winter (November–February) and (<b>b</b>) summer (May–August) AO index with ERA5 monthly MSLPA. MSLP values correspond to one standard deviation of AO index during winter and summer months. Note the difference in color scale limits between (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>). (<b>c</b>) Scatter diagram of summer sea level anomaly averaged over the Chukchi Sea box (<a href="#remotesensing-16-03397-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>c) and AO index.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Time regression of May–August Bering Strait salinity flux anomaly components, (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mo>′</mo> <mo>Δ</mo> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <msup> <mrow> <mi>S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mo>′</mo> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, on concurrent de-trended SSH anomalies. Magnitudes correspond to one standard deviation of the respective salinity flux component.</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>The same as in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03397-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> but for ORA5S reanalysis based on the NEMO ocean model.</p>
Full article ">Figure A5
<p>Time regression of May–August Bering Strait salinity flux anomaly component, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mo>′</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>, on concurrent atmospheric mean sea level pressure anomaly. Magnitude corresponds to one STD of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>S</mi> <mo>′</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 9836 KiB  
Article
An Algorithm to Retrieve Range Ocean Current Speed under Tropical Cyclone Conditions from Sentinel-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar Measurements Based on XGBoost
by Yuhang Zhou, Weizeng Shao, Ferdinando Nunziata, Weili Wang and Cheng Li
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(17), 3271; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16173271 - 3 Sep 2024
Viewed by 535
Abstract
In this study, a novel algorithm to retrieve the current speed along the range direction under extreme sea states is developed from C-band synthetic aperture radar imagery. To this aim, a Sentinel-1 (S-1) dual-polarized synthetic aperture radar (SAR) dataset consisting of 2300 images [...] Read more.
In this study, a novel algorithm to retrieve the current speed along the range direction under extreme sea states is developed from C-band synthetic aperture radar imagery. To this aim, a Sentinel-1 (S-1) dual-polarized synthetic aperture radar (SAR) dataset consisting of 2300 images is collected during 200 tropical cyclones (TCs). The dataset is complemented with collocated wave simulations from the Wavewatch-III (WW3) model and reanalysis currents from the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM). The corresponding TC winds are officially released by IFRMER, while the Stokes drift following the wave propagation direction is estimated from the waves simulated by WW3. In this study, first the dependence of wind, Stokes drift, and range current on the Doppler centroid anomaly is investigated, and then the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) machine learning model is trained on 87% of the S-1 dataset for range current retrieval purposes. The rest of the dataset is used for testing the retrieval algorithm, showing a root mean square error (RMSE) and a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.11 m/s and 0.97, respectively, with the HYCOM outputs. A validation against measurements collected from two high-frequency (HF) phased-array radars is also performed, resulting in an RMSE and r of 0.12 m/s and 0.75, respectively. Those validation results are better than the 0.22 m/s RMSE and 0.28 r achieved by the empirical CDOP model. Hence, the experimental results confirm the soundness of the XGBoost, exhibiting a certain improvement over the empirical model. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue SAR Monitoring of Marine and Coastal Environments)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The frames of the 2300 S-1 SAR images overlaid on the TC tracks and maximum wind speeds, in which the red boxes indicate the training set and the black boxes indicate the test set.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) S-1 VV-polarized NRCS image collected during the TC Infa (24 July 2021, 09:55 UTC); (<b>b</b>) S-1 VH-polarized NRCS image collected during the TC Infa (24 July 2021, 09:55 UTC); (<b>c</b>) corresponding CyclObs wind map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) SWH map simulated by WW3 at 10:00 UTC on 24 July 2021 relevant to the TC Infa, where the footprint of the HY-2B altimeter track is highlighted. (<b>b</b>) Validation of WW3-simulated SWH against the HY-2B products during the period of June–August 2022 in China seas.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Current speed map simulated for 24 July 2021, 09:00 UTC, using HYCOM. The black box represents the footprint of the S-1 SAR image shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03271-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a>a.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Current speed maps measured by the HF phased-array radars over the TC Infa on (<b>a</b>) 24 July 2021, 09:55 UTC, and (<b>b</b>) 25 July 2021, 21:51 UTC. The black line and red dot are the typhoon track, and the red triangle is the current typhoon time position.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>DCA versus (<b>a</b>) wind speed, (<b>b</b>) Stokes drift, and (<b>c</b>) current speed, projected onto the range direction. Black lines stand for the linear regression results.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The flow chart of the eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) The behavior of the XGBoost training process and (<b>b</b>) the SHAP value map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Range current speed map by XGBoost method and (<b>b</b>) the empirical algorithm obtained from the S-1 SAR scene collected over TC Infa on 24 July 2021, 09:55 UTC; (<b>c</b>) the HYCOM range current speed map on 24 July 2021, 09:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Latitude variation given the longitude—see the dashed red line in (<a href="#remotesensing-16-03271-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a>a)—of the range current speed retrieved by XGBoost (red line), by CDOP model (green line), and simulated with HYCOM (black line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Validation of SAR-derived range current wind speeds by (<b>a</b>) XGBoost and (<b>b</b>) the CDOP model against HYCOM data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Validation of SAR-derived range current wind speeds by (<b>a</b>) XGBoost and (<b>b</b>) CDOP model against HF radar measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Taylor diagram with respect to current speed up to 3 m/s at intervals of 1 m/s, in which the red and blue symbols represent the result using XGBoost and the CDOP model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Variation in the bias (SAR-derived minus HYCOM data) of the range current speed with respect to (<b>a</b>) the HYCOM current speed for 0.375 m/s, (<b>b</b>) the wind speed for 10 m/s, (<b>c</b>) the Stokes drift for a 0.125 m/s bin, and (<b>d</b>) the DCA for a 12.5 Hz bin.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 3803 KiB  
Article
Quantitative Testing of a SOLO-Based Automated Quality Control Algorithm for Airborne Tail Doppler Radar Data
by Robert Pasken and Richard Woodford
Climate 2024, 12(9), 130; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12090130 - 26 Aug 2024
Viewed by 626
Abstract
An automated quality control pre-processing algorithm for removing non-weather radar echoes from airborne Doppler radar data has been developed. The proposed algorithm can significantly reduce the time and experience level required for interactive radar data editing prior to dual-Doppler wind synthesis or data [...] Read more.
An automated quality control pre-processing algorithm for removing non-weather radar echoes from airborne Doppler radar data has been developed. The proposed algorithm can significantly reduce the time and experience level required for interactive radar data editing prior to dual-Doppler wind synthesis or data assimilation. As important as reducing the time required and skill level necessary to process an airborne Doppler dataset can be, the quality of the automated analysis is paramount. Retrieved wind data, recovered perturbation pressure data (with associated momentum check values) and correlation coefficients were computed. To quantitatively test the quality of the automated quality control algorithm, spatial Pearson correlation coefficients and momentum check values were computed. Four different (published) Electra Doppler Radar (ELDORA) datasets of convective echoes were used to stress the algorithm. Four distinct threshold levels for data removal in the automated quality control algorithm were applied to each of four ELDORA datasets. The algorithm threshold levels were labeled as follows: extremely low, low, medium, and high. Extremely low algorithm cases were deemed necessary during the data analyses and were added to the low, medium and high cases. A description of each case and the differences in the perturbation pressure momentum check values and correlation coefficients between the interactively edited fields were computed. These comparisons along with a subjective visual inspection show that the automated quality control algorithm can produce an analysis comparable—and in some cases superior—to an interactive analysis when used properly. A key benefit of this algorithm is that the skill level of a relatively inexperienced airborne radar meteorologist may be effectively increased by using the SOLO QC algorithm. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Climate and Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Horizontal perturbation pressure fields in hPa for 2.8 km AGL for the BAMEX case. Horizontal and vertical grid spacing is 500 m: (<b>A</b>) hand analysis, (<b>B</b>) extra-low automated analysis, (<b>C</b>) low automated analysis, (<b>D</b>) medium automated analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>BAMEX: (<b>A</b>) Pearson correlation coefficients; (<b>B</b>) momentum check; (<b>C</b>) momentum check differences between hand analysis and extra-low (75%), low (80%) and medium (90%) automated analyses. Hand-edited data are considered to be true.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Horizontal perturbation pressure fields in hPa for 2.3 km AGL for the Garden City/Vortex case. Horizontal and vertical grid spacing is 500 m: (<b>A</b>) hand analysis; (<b>B</b>) low automated analysis; (<b>C</b>) medium automated analysis; (<b>D</b>) high automated analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Garden City/VORTEX: (<b>A</b>) Pearson correlation coefficients. Note that the 99% and 90% curves overlap; (<b>B</b>) momentum checks. Note that the 99%, 90% and 80% curves overlap; (<b>C</b>) momentum check difference values. Low (80%), medium (90%) and high (99%) automated analyses. Hand-edited data are considered to be true. Note the the 90% and 99% curves overlap.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Horizontal perturbation pressure fields in hPa for 2.0 km AGL for Rita-RAINEX case. Horizontal and vertical grid spacing is 500 m: (<b>A</b>) hand analysis, (<b>B</b>) low automated analysis, (<b>C</b>) medium automated analysis, (<b>D</b>) and high automated analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Rita-RAINEX: Pearson correlation coefficients. Note that the 90% and 99% curves overlap (<b>A</b>) momentum check differences (<b>B</b>) and momentum check values. Note that the 80%, 90% and 99% curves overlap (<b>C</b>) between hand analysis and low (80%), medium (90%) and high (99%) automated analyses. Note that the 80%, 90% and 99% curves overlap. Hand-edited data are considered to be true.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Horizontal perturbation pressure fields at in hPa for 2.0 km AGL for the Hagupit-TPARC case. Horizontal and vertical grid spacing is 500 m: (<b>A</b>) hand analysis; (<b>B</b>) low automated analysis; (<b>C</b>) medium automated analysis; and (<b>D</b>) high automated analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Hagupit-TPARC Pearson correlation coefficients. Note that the 90% and 99% curves overlap (<b>A</b>) momentum check differences. Note the 80%, 90% and 99% curves overlap. Note that the 90% and 99% curves overlap. (<b>B</b>) momentum check values. Note that the 90% and 99% curves overlap (<b>C</b>) between hand analysis and low (80%), medium (90%) and high (99%) automated analyses. Hand-edited data are considered to be true.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Automated quality control algorithm time series for extra-low (<b>A</b>), low (<b>B</b>) and medium (<b>C</b>) for the BAMEX case for 05:20UT, 05:30UT, 05:40UT and 05:50UT.</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 503
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 ">
14 pages, 3542 KiB  
Technical Note
Study on Daytime Atmospheric Mixing Layer Height Based on 2-Year Coherent Doppler Wind Lidar Observations at the Southern Edge of the Taklimakan Desert
by Lian Su, Haiyun Xia, Jinlong Yuan, Yue Wang, Amina Maituerdi and Qing He
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(16), 3005; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16163005 - 16 Aug 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 559
Abstract
The long-term atmospheric mixing layer height (MLH) information plays an important role in air quality and weather forecasting. However, it is not sufficient to study the characteristics of MLH using long-term high spatial and temporal resolution data in the desert. In this paper, [...] Read more.
The long-term atmospheric mixing layer height (MLH) information plays an important role in air quality and weather forecasting. However, it is not sufficient to study the characteristics of MLH using long-term high spatial and temporal resolution data in the desert. In this paper, over the southern edge of the Taklimakan Desert, the diurnal, monthly, and seasonal variations in the daytime MLH (retrieved by coherent Doppler wind lidar) and surface meteorological elements (provided by the local meteorological station) in a two-year period (from July 2021 to July 2023) were statistically analyzed, and the relationship between the two kinds of data was summarized. It was found that the diurnal average MLH exhibits a unimodal distribution, and the decrease rate in the MLH in the afternoon is much higher than the increase rate before noon. From the seasonal and monthly perspective, the most frequent deep mixing layer (>4 km) was formed in June, and the MLH is the highest in spring and summer. Finally, in terms of their mutual relationship, it was observed that the east-pathway wind has a greater impact on the formation of the deep mixing layer than the west-pathway wind; the dust weather with visibility of 1–10 km contributes significantly to the formation of the mixing layer; the temperature and relative humidity also exhibit a clear trend of a concentrated distribution at about the height of 3 km. The statistical analysis of the MLH deepens the understanding of the characteristics of dust pollution in this area, which is of great significance for the treatment of local dust pollution. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The 3D topographic map of Taklimakan Desert. The red circle represents the study site of MinFeng.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The typical atmospheric mixing layer height results calculated by using the TKEDR threshold method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The seasonal and annual wind frequency rose diagrams during the daytime. (<b>a</b>) Spring. (<b>b</b>) Summer. (<b>c</b>) Fall. (<b>d</b>) Winter. (<b>e</b>) Annual.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>During the daytime, the average hourly change in the mixing layer height and various surface meteorological elements in different months. (<b>a</b>) Mixing layer height. (<b>b</b>) Atmospheric temperature. (<b>c</b>) Relative humidity. (<b>d</b>) Horizontal visibility. (<b>e</b>) Near-surface wind speed. The data at 8:00 BJT represent the monthly average of the whole hour, and the data of other hours are the same.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>During the daytime, the average hourly change in the mixing layer height and various surface meteorological elements across different seasons. (<b>a</b>) Mixing layer height. (<b>b</b>) Atmospheric temperature. (<b>c</b>) Relative humidity. (<b>d</b>) Horizontal visibility. (<b>e</b>) Near-surface wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>During the daytime, the probability distribution of the mixing layer height and various surface meteorological elements in each month and season. (<b>a</b>) Mixing layer height. (<b>b</b>) Atmospheric temperature. (<b>c</b>) Relative humidity. (<b>d</b>) Horizontal visibility. (<b>e</b>) Near-surface wind speed. (<b>f</b>) Near-surface wind direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>During the daytime, the contribution degree of surface meteorological elements to the mixing layer height at various height intervals. (<b>a</b>) The MLH and its corresponding atmospheric temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH). (<b>b</b>) The MLH and its corresponding horizontal visibility (VIS), near-surface wind speed (WS) and near-surface wind direction (WD). The beginning and end of the arrow indicate two related variables. The width of the arrow trunk signifies the degree of contribution to the mixing layer height, where a wider arrow trunk indicates a greater contribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>During the daytime, the probability density distribution between the hourly mean mixed layer height and the ground meteorological elements in spring and summer. (<b>a</b>) Atmospheric temperature versus MLH. (<b>b</b>) Relative humidity versus MLH. (<b>c</b>) Near-surface wind speed versus MLH. (<b>d</b>) Horizontal visibility versus MLH.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop