A New 32-Day Average-Difference Method for Calculating Inter-Sensor Calibration Radiometric Biases between SNPP and NOAA-20 Instruments within ICVS Framework
"> Figure 1
<p>Diagram of the ICVS-LTM, showing three key components: the Instrument Performance Monitoring System (IPMS), the SDR Quality Assurance System (SQAS), and the ICVS Anomaly Watch Portal (ICVS-AWP) (<a href="https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/icvs/index.php" target="_blank">https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/icvs/index.php</a>, accessed on 5 April 2021), as well as the associated Satellite Data and Application Demonstration System (DADS) which includes the ICVS Severe Weather Event Watch (iSEW).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Global distribution of the differences between <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>M</mi> </semantics></math> (for NOAA-20) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>N</mi> </semantics></math> (for <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span>) CrIS measurement sample sizes over each location <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>j</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> after one day and 32 days, respectively: (<b>a</b>) One day. (<b>b</b>) 32 days.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Global distribution of sample sizes for the 32-day accumulated radiance data per channel for <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> NP, where the data covers the period from 1 March 2019, to 1 April 2019.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Global distributions of the 32-day-averaged brightness temperature differences (NOAA-20 CrIS–<span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> CrIS) at two CrIS channels using Equation (5). The data cover the period from 27 September, to 28 October 2019: (<b>a</b>) 670 cm<sup>−1</sup>. (<b>b</b>) 1450 cm<sup>−1</sup>.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Global distributions of simulated 32-day-averaged <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>j</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <msub> <mi>T</mi> <mi>B</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> difference) at 670 and 1450 cm<sup>−1</sup> corresponding to the orbit time difference of NOAA-20 and <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> satellites which were calculated using (14) based on 32-day simulations from 27 September to 28 October 2019. (<b>a</b>) 670 cm<sup>−1</sup>. (<b>b</b>) 1450 cm<sup>−1</sup>.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Global distributions of 32-day-averaged brightness temperature differences at 670 and 1450 cm<sup>−1</sup> (NOAA-20 CrIS–<span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> CrIS) after the QC is applied, which are the same as <a href="#remotesensing-13-03079-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a> except for the QC applied to remove all pixels falling in the QC. (<b>a</b>) 670 cm<sup>−1</sup>. (<b>b</b>) 1450 cm<sup>−1</sup>.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Global distribution of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>P</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mn>20</mn> <mo>−</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mi>P</mi> <mi>P</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>j</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> at channels 1 and 10 for the <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> TDR (antenna temperature or <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>T</mi> <mi>A</mi> </msub> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> data with and without the QC scheme applied. The <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> data are gridded at 1° × 1° resolution covering the period from 1 November 2020, to 2 December 2020. (<b>a</b>) Channel 1 without the QC. (<b>b</b>) Channel 10 without the QC. (<b>c</b>) Channel 1 with the QC. (<b>d</b>) Channel 10 with the QC.</p> "> Figure 8
<p><span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> inter-sensor calibration radiometric biases at 22 channels using the 32D-AD method, where the data span from 1 November 2020, to 2 December 2020, and 32D-AD datasets are generated in ascending and descending, respectively. The figure also includes the inter-sensor biases at the part of <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> channels that are calculated using the <span class="html-italic">CRTM</span>-DD and AMSU-A-DD methods. The <span class="html-italic">CRTM</span>-DD represents the double-differences of <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> Scheme 20. <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> SDR data via the Metop-C AMSU-A as a transfer. The AMSU-A-DD results are an average of all <span class="html-italic">SNO</span> cases passing the QC with 1 standard deviation between AMSU-A and <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> from 1 January to 31 December 2020. The <span class="html-italic">CRTM</span>-DD results are an average of the results from 1 to 31 December 2020.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Zonal means of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mi>QC</mi> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>P</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mn>20</mn> <mo>−</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mi>P</mi> <mi>P</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>j</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> at 15 channels for <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> TDR data after the QC scheme is applied, where the 15 channels correspond to the channels of 22 <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span> channels by removing 1 to 4 and 16 to 18. In the figure, the data are in the descending node covering the period from 1 November 2020, to 2 December 2020; the zonal bins are calculated per 1° and 10° of running bin, respectively, where the center frequency within the 10° bin is used as the index of latitude per bin. (<b>a</b>) Zonal mean per 1° of latitude bin. (<b>b</b>) Zonal mean per 10° of latitude bin.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Comparison of the <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 CrIS inter-sensor calibration radiometric biases at 2211 channels spanning wavenumbers from 650 to 2545 cm<sup>−1</sup> using the methods of 32D-AD and <span class="html-italic">RTM</span>-DD, where the data cover the period from 27 September, to 28 October 2019.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Comparison of <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 CrIS inter-sensor calibration radiometric biases at 2211 channels spanning wavenumbers from 650 to 2545 cm<sup>−1</sup> using the methods of 32D-AD and ABI-DD, where the data cover the period from 27 Scheme 28. October 2019. The results with ‘Night’ and ‘Day’ in the figure correspond to the data in descending and ascending nodes, respectively.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>The zonal mean of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mi>QC</mi> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>P</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mn>20</mn> <mo>−</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mi>P</mi> <mi>P</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>j</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math> from −75° S to 75° N at six upper sounding channels for <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 CrIS, where the data cover the period from 27 September to 28 October 2019, and the selected six channels are 2275 and 2375 cm<sup>−1</sup> in the SW band, 1540 and 1700 cm<sup>−1</sup> in the MW band, and 650 and 720 cm<sup>−1</sup> in the LW band. (<b>a</b>) Zonal mean per bin of 1° latitude. (<b>b</b>) Zonal mean per bin of 10° latitude.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Global distributions of the 32-day-averaged normalized radiance at 298 nm without QC applied for <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 NP. (<b>a</b>) NOAA-20. (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span>.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>Comparison of the averaged NP inter-sensor calibration radiometric biases at all NP channels between <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 using the 32D-AD method and TomRad-DD, where the data cover the period from 31 December 2020, to 31 January 2021, over a 32-day period. The dashed lines in the figures represent a ±2% difference. (<b>a</b>) 32D-AD method. (<b>b</b>) TomRad-DD method.</p> "> Figure 15
<p>Zonal means of the 32D-AD for <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 OMPS NP NR data at the channels, 252, 273, 283, 288, 292, 298 nm, which are computed at each 10° latitude running bin. In the calculations, the data beyond the SZA of 75° are removed due to a much smaller sample size. (<b>a</b>) Zonal means of 32D-AD over NH between <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 NPs at the channels, 252, 273, 283, 288, 292, 298 nm. (<b>b</b>) The zonal mean of NP NR at 273 nm over NH for <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 individually.</p> "> Figure 16
<p>Comparison of the <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 VIIRS inter-sensor calibration radiometric biases at M-bands using the methods of 32D-AD, ABI-DD, or <span class="html-italic">CRTM</span>-DD. (<b>a</b>) Reflectivity difference (%) at 11 RSB bands using the 32D-AD and ABI-DD for the daytime data. The data for the 32D-AD calculations cover the period from 18 June 2020, to 24 April 2021, and the data for the ABI-DD calculations cover the period from 1 January 2020, to 13 April 2021, to collect sufficient cases. (<b>b</b>) TB differences at 5 TEBs using the 32D-AD and (C)<span class="html-italic">RTM</span>-DD for daytime and nighttime data, separately.</p> "> Figure 17
<p>Zonal means of the 32D-AD at the 4 RSBs from M8 to M11 and 5 TEBs from M12 to M16, which are computed at each 1° latitude bin and the 10° running latitude bin, respectively andthe number on the X-axis is the center of the bin. In (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), the data are day time data, while in (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>), ‘D’ and ‘N’ denote the data during the day time and nighttime respectively. (<b>a</b>) One-degree-bin zonal means for 4 RSBs, (<b>b</b>) ten-degree-bin zonal mean for 4 RSBs, (<b>c</b>) one-degree-bin zonal means for 5 TEBs, and (<b>d</b>) ten-degree-bin zonal mean for 5 TEBs.</p> "> Figure 18
<p>Time series of the globally-averaged brightness temperature differences at two CrIS channels of 670 and 1450 cm<sup>−1</sup> between <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20 CrIS, which are calculated using the datasets from one to 32 days with the one-sigma threshold applied to the datasets per each time period. (<b>a</b>) 670 cm<sup>−1</sup>. (<b>b</b>) 1450 cm<sup>−1</sup>.</p> "> Figure 19
<p>Time series of the globally-averaged brightness temperature differences at five OMPS NP channels between <span class="html-italic">SNPP</span> and NOAA-20, which are calculated using the datasets from one to 32 days with a two-sigma threshold applied to the data.</p> "> Figure A1
<p>Diagram of calculating both <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mi>Q</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>G</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>b</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mn>20</mn> <mo>−</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mi>P</mi> <mi>P</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mi>Q</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>Z</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mn>20</mn> <mo>−</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mi>P</mi> <mi>P</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> </mrow> </semantics></math> for gridding data and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mi>Q</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mi>G</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> <mo>,</mo> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>G</mi> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>b</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mn>20</mn> <mo>−</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mi>P</mi> <mi>P</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mo>Δ</mo> <msubsup> <mi>O</mi> <mrow> <mi>Q</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mn>32</mn> <mi>D</mi> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mi>G</mi> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> <mo>,</mo> <mtext> </mtext> <mi>Z</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>N</mi> <mn>20</mn> <mo>−</mo> <mi>S</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mi>P</mi> <mi>P</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> <mo stretchy="true">¯</mo> </mover> </mrow> </semantics></math> for non-gridding data, respectively. The instruments in (<b>a</b>) include the <span class="html-italic">ATMS</span>, CrIS, and VIIRS, while the instrument in (<b>b</b>) is the OMPS NP in this study. In the diagrams, the sigma (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mo>σ</mo> </semantics></math>) represents the standard deviation for the defined data sets; the subscript ‘<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>Q</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mo>’</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> is added to the variables to distinguish from the computations without the QC application; the equations are given in radiance but they are applicable for antenna temperature or brightness temperature. Explanations of other variables are referred to <a href="#remotesensing-13-03079-t0A1" class="html-table">Table A1</a> in <a href="#app1-remotesensing-13-03079" class="html-app">Appendix A</a>. (<b>a</b>) Gridding data. (<b>b</b>) Non-gridding data.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Descriptions of ICVS-LTM, Instruments, Data, and DD-Methods
2.1. ICVS-LTM
2.2. Channels Characterizations for Four Instruments
2.3. Data
2.4. Two DD Methods
3. Development of the 32D-AD Method
3.1. Principle of 32D-AD Method
3.2. Diurnal Error Sources
4. Calculation of Inter-Sensor Calibration Radiometric Biases Using the 32D-AD Method
5. Application to Observations from SNPP and NOAA-20 Instruments within ICVS Framework
5.1. ATMS
5.2. CrIS
5.3. OMPS NP
5.4. VIIRS
5.5. Some Discussions about 32D-AD Method
6. Summary and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Detailed Descriptions of Variables in the 32D-AD Method
32-day-averaged differences (32D-AD) of gridded data at location for the same type of instruments between NOAA-20 and SNPP, referring to the individual 32D-AD at location | |
Zonal mean difference of the 32-day gridded data at the ith latitude (range) for the same type of instruments between NOAA-20 and SNPP, referring to the zonal mean of 32D-AD | |
Same as except for the QC-passing gridded data | |
Same as except for the data without gridding | |
Global mean difference of 32-day gridded data for the same type of instruments between NOAA-20 and SNPP, referring to the global mean of 32D-AD | |
Same as except for the QC-passing gridded data | |
Same as except for the data without gridding | |
Same as except for the QC-passing data | |
Global mean of the 32-day data without gridding per satellite, . | |
Zonal mean of the 32-day data (no gridding) at a given latitude (range) per satellite | |
Average of the 32-day gridded data at location per satellite | |
lth data at the location among the 32-day gridded data per satellite | |
lth data of accumulated 32-day datasets without gridding per satellite | |
Sample size of the 32-day data without gridding per satellite | |
Sample size of the 32-day QC-passing data without gridding per satellite | |
Sample size of the 32-day data without gridding at the ith latitude (range) per satellite | |
Same as except for the QC-passing data per satellite | |
Sample size of the 32-day gridded data at the location by NOAA-20 instrument | |
Same as except for the QC-passing gridded data per satellite | |
Same as except for SNPP instrument | |
and | is determined by the grid resolution of the data in latitude direction, e.g., for 1° × 1° gridded data; is the same as except for QC-passing data |
and | is determined by the grid resolution of the data in longitude direction, e.g., for 1° × 1° gridded data; and is the same as except for QC-passing data |
Appendix B. 32D-AD Formulae for Estimating Inter-Sensor Calibration Radiometric Biases
References
- Yan, B.; Sun, N.; Jin, X.; Huang, J.; Liang, D.; Porter, W.; Liang, X.; Kireev, S.; Zhou, L.; Goldberg, M. Exploring New Developments of the STAR Integrated Calibration/Validation System; American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available online: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AGUFM.A23A03B/abstract (accessed on 19 July 2021).
- Cao, C.; Weinreb, M.; Xu, H. Predicting simultaneous nadir overpasses among polar-orbiting meteorological satellites for the intersatellite calibration of radiometers. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2004, 21, 537–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, C.; Weng, F.; Goldberg, M.; Wu, X.; Xu, H.; Ciren, P. Intersatellite calibration of polar-orbiting radiometers using the SNO/SCO method. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Seoul, Korea, 29 July 2005; p. 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacovazzi, R.; Cao, C. Reducing Uncertainties of SNO-Estimated Intersatellite AMSU-A Brightness Temperature Biases for Surface-Sensitive Channels. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2007, 25, 1048–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Weng, F. Intercalibration Between Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder and Special Sensor Microwave Imager. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2008, 46, 984–995. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, S.; Weng, F.; Yan, B.; Sun, N.; Goldberg, M. Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) Intersensor Calibration Using a Simultaneous Conical Overpass Technique. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol. 2011, 50, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Chen, J. Post-launch Performance Assessment of Metop-C Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A) Instrument Noise and Antenna Temperature Data. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 26 September–2 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, B.; Chen, J.; Zou, C.-Z.; Ahmad, K.; Qian, H.; Garrett, K.; Zhu, T.; Han, D.; Green, J. Calibration and Validation of Antenna and Brightness Temperatures from Metop-C Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A). Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uprety, S.; Cao, C.; Shao, X. Geo-Leo intercalibration to evaluate the radiometric performance of NOAA-20 VIIRS and GOES-16 ABI. In Proceedings of the SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, San Diego, CA, USA, 9 September 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X.; Yan, B.; Sun, N. Advancing CrIS and ABI Inter-Comparison Applicable for JSTAR Integrated Calibration/Validation System; AGU Fall meeting: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, B.; Weng, F. Effects of Microwave Desert Surface Emissivity on AMSU-A Data Assimilation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2011, 49, 1263–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaross, G.; Huang, L.-K. Update on the NOAA-20 OMPS NP solar intrusion anomaly. In Proceedings of the NASA Ozone Processing Team (OPT) meeting, Greenbelt, MD, USA, 8 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ramachandran, S.; Keegstra, P.; Vogel, R.L.; Soracco, M.; Hughes, K. Ocean color products validation at NOAA CoastWatch. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 13–18 July 2014; pp. 1182–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sungmin, O.; Kirstetter, P.-E. Evaluation of diurnal variation of GPM IMERG derived summer precipitation over the contiguous US using MRMS data. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2018, 144, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zou, C.-Z.; Wang, W. 2009: Diurnal drift correction in the NESDIS/STAR MSU/AMSU atmospheric temperature climate data record. In Proceedings of the SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, San Diego, CA, USA, 12 August 2009; Volume 7456. [Google Scholar]
- Po-Chedley, S.; Thorsen, T.J.; Fu, Q. Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies. J. Clim. 2015, 28, 2274–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Goldberg, M.; Jin, X.; Huang, J.; Sun, N.; Liang, D.; Porter, W.; Zhou, L. SNPP and NOAA-20 Global Inter-Sensor Bias Assessments within ICVS Framework Using 32-Day Averaged Difference Method. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Virtual Symposium, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 26 September 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J.; Yan, B.; Sun, N.; Liang, D.; Porter, W.; Liang, X.; Jin, X.; Atkins, T.; Zhou, L.; Goldberg, M. JPSS/STAR ICVS Severe Event Watch System Development and Applications; American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available online: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AGUFMIN33F0898H/abstract (accessed on 21 February 2021).
- Yan, B.; Liang, D.; Porter, W.; Huang, J.; Sun, N.; Zhou, L.; Zhu, T.; Goldberg, M.; Zhang, D.-L.; Liu, Q. Gap filling of advanced technology microwave sounder data as applied to hurricane warm core animations. Earth Space Sci. 2020, 7, e2019EA000961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) SDR Radiometric Calibration Algorithm Theoretical Basic Document (ATBD). 2011. Available online: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/jpss/documents/ATBD/D0001-M01-S01-001_JPSS_ATBD_ATMS-SDR_A.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2021).
- Rev, C. (Ed.) Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Cross Track Infrared Sounder (CrIS) Sensor Data Records (SDR) Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD); Code 474, 474-00032; Goddard Space Flight Center: Greenbelt, Maryland, 2014.
- Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) OMPS Nadir Profile Ozone Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document; JPSS Ground Project Code 474-00026; Goddard Space Flight Center: Greenbelt, Maryland, 2014.
- NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142, Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) Sensor Data Record (SDR) User’s Guide, Version 1.3, NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, 2017. Available online: https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/documents/documentation/viirs-users-guide-tech-report-142a-v1.3.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2021).
- Yan, B.; Ahmad, K. Derivation and Validation of Sensor Brightness Temperatures for Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A Instruments. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2020, 99, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, F.; Zou, X.; Sun, N.; Yang, H.; Tian, M.; Blackwell, W.J.; Wang, X.; Lin, L.; Anderson, K. Calibration of Suomi national polar-orbiting partnership advanced technology microwave sounder. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 11187–11200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Pan, C.; Beck, T.; Xiong, X.; Liang, D.; Chen, J.; Jaross, G.; Flynn, L. NOAA-20 OMPS NP SDR Report for Validated Maturity Review. NOAA JPSS Science Review. 2020. Available online: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/jpss/documents/AMM/N20/OMPS_NP_SDR_Validated.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2021).
- Han, Y.; van Delst, P.; Liu, Q.; Weng, F.; Yan, B.; Treadon, R.; Derber, J. JCSDA Community Radiative Transfer Model (CRTM)-Version 1. NOAA Tech. Rep. NESDIS 2006, 122, 1–33. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Weng, F.; Han, Y.; Liu, Q. Validation of the Community Radiative Transfer Model by using CloudSat data. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2008, 113, D8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, S.; Yang, P.; Weng, F.; Liu, Q.; Han, Y.; van Delst, P.; Li, J.; Baum, B. Validation of the community radiative transfer model. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2011, 112, 1050–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carminat, F.; Migliorini1, S.; Ingleby, B.; Bell, W.; Lawrence, H.; Newman, S.; Hocking, J.; Smith, A. Using reference radiosondes to characterize NWP model uncertainty for improved satellite calibration and validation. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2019, 12, 83–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eck, F.; Bhartia, P.K.; Kerr, J.B. Satellite estimation of spectral UVB irradiance using TOMS derived total ozone and UV reflectivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1995, 22, 611–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, W.; Schabel, M. Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends. Nature 1998, 394, 661–664. [Google Scholar]
- Han, Y.; Revercomb, H.; Cromp, M.; Gu, D.; Johnson, D.; Mooney, D.; Scott, D.; Strow, L.; Bingham, G.; Borg, L.; et al. Suomi NPP CrIS measurements, sensor data record algorithm, calibration and validation activities, and record data quality. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 12734–12748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Han, Y.; Weng, F. Characterization of long-term stability of Suomi NPP Cross-Track Infrared Sounder spectral calibration. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2017, 55, 1147–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez, F.; Tobin, D.; Strow, L.; Scott, D.; Mooney, D.; Johnson, D.; Suwinski, L.; Predina, J.; Bolen, D.; Guenther, B.; et al. NOAA-20 CrIS SDR Report for Validated Maturity Review. NOAA JPSS Science Review. 2018. Available online: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/jpss/documents/AMM/N20/CrIS_SDR_Validated.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2021).
- Sanchez, F.; Strow, L.; Tobin, D.; Scott, D.; Chen, Y.; Tremblay, D.; Knuteson, R.; Johnson, D.; Buttles, C.; Suwinski, L.; et al. SNPP CrIS Instrument: Successfully Restored after Midwave Infrared Band Anomaly, Submitted to the ITGRS. In Proceedings of the 22nd International TOVS Study Conference, Saint-Sauveur, QC, Canada, 31 October–6 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- McClatchey, R.A.; Fenn, R.W.; Selby, J.E.A.; Volz, F.E.; Garing, J.S. Optical Properties of the Atmosphere; Research Paper 411, AFCRL-72-0497; Defense Technical Information Center: Fort Belvoir, VA, USA, 1972; p. 108.
- Sun, N.; Yan, B.; Liu, Q. Evaluation of Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) Science Data Long-Term Trending through Intersatellite Comparisons. In Proceedings of the 101st AMS Virtual Conference, Online, 10–15 January 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, X.; Yan, B.; Sun, N. Improving SNPP and NOAA-20 CrIS LTM Inter-sensor Radiometric Bias Assessment by Using Interpolating ABI Measurements as Transfer. In Proceedings of the 101st AMS Virtual Conference, Online, 10–15 January 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, C.; Weng, F.; Flynn, L. Spectral performance and calibration of the Suomi NPP OMPS Nadir Profiler sensor. Earth Space Sci. 2017, 4, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan., C.; Cao, C.; Flynn, L.; Xiong, X.; Beach, E.; Zhou, L. Performance of OMPS Nadir Profilers’ Sensor Data Records. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, L.; Long, C.; Wu, X.; Evans, R.; Beck, C.T.; Petropavlovskikh, I.; McConville, G.; Yu, W.; Zhang, Z.; Niu, J.; et al. Performance of the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS) products. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2014, 119, 6181–6195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, J.; Flynn, L.E.; Beck, T.; Zhang, Z.; Beach, E. Evaluation and Improvement of the Near-Real-Time Linear Fit SO2; Retrievals from Suomi NPP Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Cao, C.; Blonski, S.; Gu, Y.; Zhang, B. An Improved Method for VIIRS Radiance Limit Verification and Saturation Rollover Flagging. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, C.; Deluccia, F.; Xiong, J.; Weng, F. NPP VIIRS SDR Postlaunch Calibration/Validation. Available online: https://ncc.nesdis.noaa.gov/documents/presentations/ams-viirs-sdr-calval-star-cao-01232012.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2012).
- Cao, C.; Xiong, J.; Blonski, S.; Liu, Q.; Uprety, S.; Shao, X.; Bai, Y.; Weng, F. Suomi NPP VIIRS sensor data record verification, validation, and long-term performance monitoring. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 11664–11678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Kireev, S.V. A New Methodology on Noise Equivalent Differential Temperature Calculation for On-Orbit Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit—A Instrument. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Chen, J.; Porter, W.; Kireev, S.; Sun, N.; Zou, C.; Zhou, L. Accurately Quantifying NEDT Performance for In-Orbit AMSU-A and ATMS Instruments by Using a Newly Developed Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2019 Joint Satellite Conference, Boston, MA, USA, 28 September–4 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
ATMS (GHz) | 23.8 (CH.1) | 31.4 (CH.2) | 50.3 (CH3) | 51.76 (CH4) | 52.8 (CH5) | 53.596 ± 0.115 (CH6) |
54.4 (CH7) | 54.94 (CH8) | 55.50 (CH9) | fo = 57.29 (CH10) | fo ± 0.217 (CH11) | fo ± 0.322 ± 0.048 (CH12) | |
fo ± 0.322 ± 0.022 (CH13) | fo ± 0.322 ± 0.010 (CH14) | fo ± 0.322 ± 0.004 (CH15) | 88.2 (CH16) | |||
165.5 (CH17) | 183.31 ± 7.0 (CH18) | 183.31 ± 3.0 (CH20) | 183.31 ± 1.8 (CH21) | 183.31 ± 1.0 (CH22) | ||
CrIS | LW: 650–1095 cm−1 (15.38–9.14 μm) | |||||
MW: 1210–1750 cm−1 (8.26–5.71 μm) | ||||||
SW: 2155–2550 cm−1 (4.64–3.92 μm) | ||||||
OMPS NP | 250–310 nm (147 channels in a spectral resolution of ~0.41 nm) | |||||
VIIRS (μm) | 0.412 (M1) | 0.445 (M2) | 0.488 (M3) | 0.555 (M4) | 0.672 (M5) | 0.746 (M6) |
0.865 (M7) | 1.24 (M8) | 1.378 (M9) | 1.61 (M10) | 2.25 (M11) | 3.70 (M12) | |
4.05 (M13) | 8.55 (M14) | 10.763 (M15) | 12.013 (M16) | |||
0.640 (I1) | 0.865 (I2) | 1.61 (I3) | 3.74 (I4) | 11.450 (I5) | 0.7 (DNB) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yan, B.; Goldberg, M.; Jin, X.; Liang, D.; Huang, J.; Porter, W.; Sun, N.; Zhou, L.; Pan, C.; Iturbide-Sanchez, F.; et al. A New 32-Day Average-Difference Method for Calculating Inter-Sensor Calibration Radiometric Biases between SNPP and NOAA-20 Instruments within ICVS Framework. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3079. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163079
Yan B, Goldberg M, Jin X, Liang D, Huang J, Porter W, Sun N, Zhou L, Pan C, Iturbide-Sanchez F, et al. A New 32-Day Average-Difference Method for Calculating Inter-Sensor Calibration Radiometric Biases between SNPP and NOAA-20 Instruments within ICVS Framework. Remote Sensing. 2021; 13(16):3079. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163079
Chicago/Turabian StyleYan, Banghua, Mitch Goldberg, Xin Jin, Ding Liang, Jingfeng Huang, Warren Porter, Ninghai Sun, Lihang Zhou, Chunhui Pan, Flavio Iturbide-Sanchez, and et al. 2021. "A New 32-Day Average-Difference Method for Calculating Inter-Sensor Calibration Radiometric Biases between SNPP and NOAA-20 Instruments within ICVS Framework" Remote Sensing 13, no. 16: 3079. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163079