4.6 Article

Comparison and assimilation of global soil moisture retrievals from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) and the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR)

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2006JD008033

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] Two data sets of satellite surface soil moisture retrievals are first compared and then assimilated into the NASA Catchment land surface model. The first satellite data set is derived from 4 years of X-band (10.7 GHz) passive microwave brightness temperature observations by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), and the second is from 9 years of C-band (6.6 GHz) brightness temperature observations by the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR). Despite the similarity in the satellite instruments, the retrieved soil moisture data exhibit very large differences in their multiyear means and temporal variability, primarily because they are computed with different retrieval algorithms. The satellite retrievals are also compared to a soil moisture product generated by the NASA Catchment land surface model when driven with surface meteorological data derived from observations. The climatologies of both satellite data sets are different from those of the model products. Prior to assimilation of the satellite retrievals into the land model, satellite-model biases are removed by scaling the satellite retrievals into the land model's climatology through matching of the respective cumulative distribution functions. Validation against in situ data shows that for both data sets the soil moisture fields from the assimilation are superior to either satellite data or model data alone. A global analysis of the innovations ( defined as the difference between the observations and the corresponding model values prior to the assimilation update) reveals how changes in model and observations error parameters may enhance filter performance in future experiments.

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