SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.
-
Upload
melvyn-bell -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.
![Page 1: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SMOS Quality Working GroupMeeting #2
Frascati (Rome), September 13th-14th,2010
SMOS-BEC Team
![Page 2: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2 / Ntot
Outline
• METHODOLOGY• TESTS
1. RETRIEVAL MODE
Dual from Full vs. Stokes from Full
2. BIAS MITIGATION
No correction vs. External Bias Temperature Calibration vs. OTT
3. MODELS
Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
4. SSS SELECTION
All overpasses vs. Ascending vs. Descending
5. TB SELECTION
EAF vs. AF
6. NEW FTR
July vs. August• CONCLUSIONS (+ or -)
![Page 3: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3 / Ntot
Methodology
All the results presented are at Level 3 (10-day 2-degree product).
Retrievals have been performed using SMOS-OS Level2 Processor.
Level 2 data have been filtered according to:
Fg_ctrl_reach_maxiter1,2,3: Maximum number of iteration reached before
convergence.
Fg_ctrl_marq1,2,3: Iterative loop ends because Marquardt
increment is greater than lambdaMax (100).
Statistical characterization is done considering only points more than 200 km from the coast
Fg_sc_land_sea_coast1 = 1 & Fg_sc_land_sea_coast2 = 0
![Page 4: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4 / Ntot
Methodology
L2 L3 averaging has been performed according to:
iobsi
iobsiiL
L N
NSSSSSS
2
3
The L3 accuracy is also introduced to someway estimate the quality of the measurement
iobsi
iobsiiLiL
L N
NSSSSSSACC
2
22
3
![Page 5: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5 / Ntot
Tests
1.RETRIEVAL MODE
10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th
ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed
Model 2 in the mode “Stokes from Full-Pol” has been used
OTT has been applied in accordance to the official DPGS product
L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data
![Page 6: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6 / Ntot
Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I
L3 maps - Dual
Amazon plume
Cold waters
![Page 7: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7 / Ntot
Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I
L3 maps - Stokes’ I
Amazon plume
Cold waters
![Page 8: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8 / Ntot
Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I
L3 maps
![Page 9: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9 / Ntot
Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I
L3 maps - Accuracy
2.5 psu
![Page 10: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10 / Ntot
Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I
L3 statistics - Dual
rms
0.2260 2.2565 2.2678
0.5559 1.4457 1.5489
rms
0.2958 1.4391 1.4692
0.5278 0.5805 0.7846
![Page 11: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11 / Ntot
Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I
L3 statistics – Stokes’ I
rms
0.2445 2.3505 2.3631
0.6157 1.5464 +7%
rms
0.2935 1.6756 1.7011
0.6080 0.5932 0.8495
+4%
1.6645
+14%
+8%
![Page 12: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12 / Ntot
Tests
2.BIAS MITIGATION
10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th
ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed
Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” has been used
No correction, external brightness temperature calibration[*], and OTT have been applied
L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data
![Page 13: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
External Brightness Temperature Calibration
Constant within the snapshot (xi, eta) but varying in time
Ocean Target Transformation
Constant in time but varying within the same snapshot
snapshotmodretcorr TBTBTBTB
),( modretcorr TBTBTBTB
![Page 14: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 maps – No bias mitigation
![Page 15: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 maps – External Brightness Temperature Calibration
![Page 16: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 maps – External Brightness Temperature Calibration
MEAN BIAS SUBTRACTED
Less intense land-sea transition effect
![Page 17: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 maps – Ocean Target Transformation
![Page 18: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 maps - Accuracy
2.5 psu
![Page 19: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 statistics – no bias mitigation
rms
3.9591 2.6742 4.7776
3.3468 3.7604 5.8288
rms
4.1488 1.8571 4.5455
3.5769 0.6343 3.6327
![Page 20: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 statistics – External Brightness Temperature Calibration
rms
2.9600 2.3886 3.8036
2.1981 1.7300 2.7972
rms
3.1541 1.7764 3.6199
2.2214 0.5801 2.2959
-14% -20%
-52% -37%
![Page 21: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21 / Ntot
Tests – Bias mitigation
L3 statistics – Ocean Target Transformation
rms
0.2260 2.2565 2.2678
0.5559 1.4457 1.5489
rms
0.2958 1.4391 1.4692
0.5278 0.5805 0.7846
-52%
-73%
-68%
-78%
![Page 22: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22 / Ntot
Tests
3.MODELS
10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th
ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed
OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product
Model 2 and Model 3(16) are compared
L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data
![Page 23: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
L3 maps – Model 2
![Page 24: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
L3 maps – Model 3(16)
![Page 25: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
L3 maps
![Page 26: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
SST L3 maps
![Page 27: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
WS L3 maps FROM ASCAT
![Page 28: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
Scatterplot
![Page 29: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
L3 maps - Accuracy
2.5 psu
![Page 30: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
L3 statistics – Model 2
rms
0.2445 2.3505 2.3631
0.6157 1.5464 1.6645
rms
0.2935 1.6756 1.7011
0.6080 0.5932 0.8495
![Page 31: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31 / Ntot
Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
L3 statistics – Model 3(16)
rms
0.8302 2.5735 2.7041
0.8490 1.7188 1.9171
rms
0.9346 1.9486 2.1611
0.9522 0.6619 1.1597
+13%
+13%
+21%
+27%
![Page 32: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32 / Ntot
Tests
4.SSS SELECTION
10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th
ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed
OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product
L3 averaging has been performed using ALL the overpasses, only the ASCENDING ones, and only
the DESCENDING ones
L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data
![Page 33: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33 / Ntot
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
L3 maps - All
![Page 34: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34 / Ntot
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
L3 maps - Ascending
Fresher when ice/land enters in the FOV
Saltier when it exits
![Page 35: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35 / Ntot
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
L3 maps - Descending Generally saltier
Fresher when ice/land enters in the FOV
Saltier when it exits
![Page 36: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36 / Ntot
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
L3 maps – comparisons with Ext TB cal
![Page 37: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
land-sea contamination
a previous study
![Page 38: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38 / Ntot
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
L3 statistics - All
rms
0.2260 2.2565 2.2678
0.5559 1.4457 1.5489
rms
0.2958 1.4391 1.4692
0.5278 0.5805 0.7846
ALL PASSES ALL PASSES
![Page 39: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39 / Ntot
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
L3 statistics - Ascending
rms
-0.0214 3.3183 3.3183
0.2175 1.5405 1.5557
rms
-0.3585 3.0150 3.0362
0.1239 0.8506 0.8595
+32%
=
+52%
+9%
![Page 40: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40 / Ntot
Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending
L3 statistics - Descending
rms
0.3851 2.9766 3.0014
0.9942 1.7178 1.9848
rms
0.7824 1.8510 2.0096
1.0820 0.9610 1.4472
+24%
+22%
+27%
+46%
![Page 41: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41 / Ntot
Tests
5.TB SELECTION
5 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 14th
ISEA4H9 has been used
Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” is analized
OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product
TB with a have been filtered out to almost reproduce the AF-FOV
L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data
25.022
![Page 42: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42 / Ntot
Tests – EAF vs. AF
AF-FOV approx.
![Page 43: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43 / Ntot
Tests – EAF vs. AF
L3 maps - EAF
![Page 44: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44 / Ntot
Tests – EAF vs. AF
L3 maps - AF
![Page 45: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45 / Ntot
Tests – EAF vs. AF
L3 maps – AF minus EAF
Ascending positive
Descending negative
![Page 46: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46 / Ntot
Tests – EAF vs. AF
L3 statistics - EAF
rms
-0.1680 2.7191 2.7242
0.4170 1.1453 1.2189
rms
0.0068 1.8762 1.8762
0.3608 0.6828 0.7722
![Page 47: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47 / Ntot
Tests – EAF vs. AF
L3 statistics – AF
rms
-0.0867 2.8017 2.8030
0.5254 1.2677 1.3722
rms
0.0674 1.9639 1.9650
0.4797 0.7427 0.8841
+3%
+11%
+5%
+13%
![Page 48: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48 / Ntot
Tests
6.NEW FTR
10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th and August, 20th to 29th are compared
as produced by the DPGS:
ISEA4H9 has been used
Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” is analyzed
OTT has been applied
L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data
![Page 49: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49 / Ntot
Tests – July vs. August
L3 maps - July
![Page 50: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50 / Ntot
Tests – July vs. August
L3 maps - August Generally fresher
![Page 51: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51 / Ntot
Tests – July vs. August
August minus July
![Page 52: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52 / Ntot
Tests – July vs. August
L3 statistics - July
rms
-0.0308 2.6585 2.6587
0.5923 1.0897 1.2403
rms
0.1905 1.7765 1.7867
0.5401 0.5574 0.7762
![Page 53: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53 / Ntot
Tests – July vs. August
L3 statistics – August
rms
-0.4285 2.8671 2.8990
0.2659 1.1050 1.1366
rms
-0.2197 1.8899 1.9027
0.2691 0.5818 0.6410
+8%
-8%
+6%
-17%
![Page 54: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Conclusions (+ or -)
1. Dual from Full vs. Stokes from Full
4-14 % increment in SSS misfit rms using Stokes’ I
2. No correction vs. External Bias Temperature Calibration vs. OTT
Ext TB cal. partially diminishes the SSS misfit rms, OTT has a very
strong improvement effect.
Ext TB cal partially corrects for the land-sea transition effect and
seems to work better in the North Atl. waters (?)
The combined use of both techniques can be envisaged…
3. Model 2 vs. Model 3(16)
Model 3 is still in definition, conf. 16 (from WISE) has been used,
performing relatively close to Model 2. difference between models
are strongly related to SST.
4. All overpasses vs. Ascending vs. Descending
Waters appear fresher when land/ice enters in the FOV and saltier
when it exits when using only ascending or descending passes, the effect
is compensated using both. Descending passes give
generally saltier SSS.
![Page 55: SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/5697bfa71a28abf838c98a44/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Conclusions (+ or -)
Ext TB calibration gives more homogeneous results…again the
combined use can be envisaged…
5. EAF vs. AF
Using only AF FOV a positive bias has been found in the ascending
passes, negative in the descending, w.r.t the case of using EAF FOV.
Change in statistics is small.
6. July vs. August
August 10-day SSS misfit is in average 0.3-0.4 psu fresher than
July’s SSS misfit.
Anyway statistics are very similar and no clear improvement can
be observed.