4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

L-Band Passive and Active Microwave Geophysical Model Functions of Ocean Surface Winds and Applications to Aquarius Retrieval

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2266915

关键词

Microwave remote sensing; ocean wind; radar; radiometer

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The L-band passive and active microwave geophysical model functions (GMFs) of ocean surface winds from the Aquarius data are derived. The matchups of Aquarius data with the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) and National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) winds were performed and were binned as a function of wind speed and direction. The radar HH GMF is in good agreement with the PALSAR GMF. For wind speeds above 10 m.s(-1), the L-band ocean backscatter shows positive upwind-crosswind (UC) asymmetry; however, the UC asymmetry becomes negative between about 3 and 8 m.s(-1). The negative UC (NUC) asymmetry has not been observed in higher frequency (above C-band) GMFs for ASCAT or QuikSCAT. Unexpectedly, the NUC symmetry also appears in the L-band radiometer data. We find direction dependence in the Aquarius TBV, TBH, and third Stokes data with peak-to-peak modulations increasing from about a few tenths to 2 K in the range of 10-25-m.s(-1) wind speed. The validity of the GMFs is tested through application to wind and salinity retrieval from Aquarius data using the combined active-passive algorithm. Error assessment using the triple collocation analyses of SSM/I, NCEP, and Aquarius winds indicates that the retrieved Aquarius wind speed accuracy is excellent, with a random error of about 0.75 m.s(-1). The wind direction retrievals also appear reasonable and accurate above 10 m.s(-1). The results of the error analysis indicate that the uncertainty of the GMFs for the wind speed correction of vertically polarized brightness temperatures is about 0.14 K for wind speed up to 10 m.s(-1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据