4.6 Article

Sea-surface reflectance factor: replicability of computed values

期刊

OPTICS EXPRESS
卷 29, 期 16, 页码 25217-25241

出版社

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/OE.424768

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Joint Research Center of European Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study primarily investigates the impact of various sky-radiance and sea-surface models on the sea-surface reflectance factor rho, with results showing increased variability of rho with wind speed and sun elevation. A comparison with formally determined values reveals systematic differences, and implications for field measurements are discussed.
The sea-surface reflectance factor rho required for the determination of the water-leaving radiance from above-water radiometric measurements is derived from radiative transfer simulations relying on models of the sky-radiance distribution and sea-surface statistics. This work primarily investigates the impact on rho of various sky-radiance and sea-surface models. A specific replicability analysis, restricted to the 550 nm wavelength, has been performed with the Monte Carlo code for Ocean Color Simulations (so-called MOX) accounting for the measurement geometry recommended in protocols for the validation of satellite ocean color data and commonly applied for operational measurements. Results indicate that the variability of rho increases with wind speed and reaches the largest values for sun elevations close to the zenith or approaching the horizon. In particular, a variability up to about 2% is observed for wind speeds below 4 ms(-1) and sun zenith angles larger than 20 degrees. Finally, the benchmark of the rho values from this study with those formally determined with the Hydrolight code and widely utilized by the ocean color community, exhibits systematic differences. The source of these differences is discussed and the implications for field measurements are addressed. (C) 2021 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

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

4.6
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