4.7 Article

Evaluation of MODIS LST Products Using Longwave Radiation Ground Measurements in the Northern Arid Region of China

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 6, Issue 11, Pages 11494-11517

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs61111494

Keywords

validation; land surface temperature products (LSTs); MODIS; longwave radiation; remote sensing

Funding

  1. National High-Tech Program (863) of China [2013AA12A301]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91125004]
  3. Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-EW-312]
  4. Chinese State Key Basic Research Project [2009CB421305]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents preliminary results of the validation of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) daily LST products (MOD/MYD11A1, Version 5) using longwave radiation ground measurements obtained at 12 stations in the North Arid and Semi-Arid Area Cooperative Experimental Observation Integrated Research program. In this evaluation process, the broadband emissivity at each station was obtained from the ASTER Spectral Library or estimated from the MODIS narrowband emissivity Collection 5. A comparison of the validation results based on those two methods shows that no significant differences occur in the short-term validation, and a sensitivity analysis of the broadband emissivity demonstrates that it has a limited effect on the evaluation results. In general, the results at the 12 stations indicate that the LST products have a lower accuracy in China's arid and semi-arid areas than in other areas, with a mean absolute error of 2-3 K. Compared with the temporal mismatch, the spatial mismatch has a stronger effect on the validation results in this study, and the stations with homogeneous land cover have more comparable MODIS LST accuracies. Comparisons between the stations indicate that the spatial mismatch can increase the influence of the temporal mismatch.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available