4.7 Article

Discrepancies in the Simulated Global Terrestrial Latent Heat Flux from GLASS and MERRA-2 Surface Net Radiation Products

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 12, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs12172763

关键词

surface net radiation; terrestrial latent heat flux; GLASS; MERRA-2; uncertainty

资金

  1. National Key Research Development Program of China [2016YFA0600103, 2016YFB0501404]
  2. Natural Science Fund of China [41671331, 41701483]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surface all-wave net radiation (Rn) is a crucial variable driving many terrestrial latent heat (LE) models that estimate global LE. However, the differences between different Rn products and their impact on global LE estimates still remain unclear. In this study, we evaluated two Rn products, Global LAnd Surface Satellite (GLASS) beta version Rn and Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications-version 2 (MERRA-2) Rn, from 2007-2017 using ground-measured data from 240 globally distributed in-situ radiation measurements provided by FLUXNET projects. The GLASS Rn product had higher accuracy (R(2)increased by 0.04-0.26, and RMSE decreased by 2-13.3 W/m(2)) than the MERRA-2 Rn product for all land cover types on a daily scale, and the two Rn products differed greatly in spatial distribution and variations. We then determined the resulting discrepancies in simulated annual global LE using a simple averaging model by merging five diagnostic LE models: RS-PM model, SW model, PT-JPL model, MS-PT model, and SIM model. The validation results showed that the estimated LE from the GLASS Rn had higher accuracy (R(2)increased by 0.04-0.14, and RMSE decreased by 3-8.4 W/m(2)) than that from the MERRA-2 Rn for different land cover types at daily scale. Importantly, the mean annual global terrestrial LE from GLASS Rn was 2.1% lower than that from the MERRA-2 Rn. Our study showed that large differences in satellite and reanalysis Rn products could lead to substantial uncertainties in estimating global terrestrial LE.

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