Using VIIRS I or M band as the calibration reference

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
Advertisements

Evaluating Calibration of MODIS Thermal Emissive Bands Using Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer Measurements Yonghong Li a, Aisheng Wu a, Xiaoxiong.
NASA, CGMS-41, July 2013 Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites - CGMS Calibration/validation of Operational Instruments at NASA Langley Research.
Analysis of Simultaneous Nadir Observations of MODIS from AQUA and TERRA Andrew Heidinger and many others NOAA/NESDIS Office of Research and Applications.
NPP VIIRS Over Thailand Forest Fire Application Veerachai Tanpipat APAN CM 13 February 2012 APAN 33 rd Meeting ECC, Chiang Mai, Thailand February.
Radiometric Comparison between Suomi NPP VIIRS and AQUA MODIS using Extended Simultaneous Nadir Overpass in the Low Latitudes Sirish Uprety a Changyong.
Date of download: 5/29/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Dome C, MODIS/AVHRR TOA reflectance time series for (a) band 1, (b) band 2, (c)
NOAA GPRC Report 2013 GSICS Annual Meeting Williamsburg, VA 03/04/ /08/2013.
Desert-based calibration of co-located geostationary visible sensors using a daily exoatmospheric radiance model (DERM) Raj Bhatt, Dave Doelling, Ben Scarino,
Spectral band adjustment factors in the SW GSICS Annual Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, 7 March 2013 Benjamin Scarino a, David R. Doelling b, Patrick Minnis.
Thomas C. Stone U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, AZ USA GSICS Research Working Group Meeting EUMETSAT 24−28 March 2014 Using the Moon as a Radiometric.
Aqua-MODIS and VIIRS DCC calibration
GSICS Web Meeting, 17 November 2011
Paper under review for JGR-Atmospheres …
GSICS DCC calibration update
NOAA VIIRS Team GIRO Implementation Updates
Minimising Uncertainty in SBAF - Using AIRS to bridge gap HIRS/2-IASI GSICS meeting, March 2014, Darmstadt, Germany - Change title to more general one.
Aisheng Wua, Jack Xiongb & Changyong Caoc  
VIS/NIR reference instrument requirements
GRWG VIS/NIR Sub-Group Briefing Report
Benjamin Scarino, David R
Seung-Hee Ham and B.J. Sohn Seoul National University, Korea
Progress toward DCC Demo product
Lunar Calibration Workshop Activities
Sébastien Wagner, Tim Hewison In collaboration with D. Doelling (NASA)
Extending DCC to other bands and DCC ray-matching
Fangfang Yu and Xiangqian Wu
Spectral Band Adjustment Factor (SBAF) Tool
Doelling, Wagner 2015 GSICS annual meeting, New Delhi March 20, 2015
DCC inter-calibration of Himawari-8/AHI VNIR bands
Verifying the DCC methodology calibration transfer
An Overview of MODIS Reflective Solar Bands Calibration and Performance Jack Xiong NASA / GSFC GRWG Web Meeting on Reference Instruments and Their Traceability.
Using SCIAMACHY to calibrate GEO imagers
GOES-East DCC analysis
On the use of Ray-Matching to transfer calibration
Combining Vicarious Calibrations
Introduction of the SCIAMACHY SBAF web tool
GSICS VIS/NIR subgroup report
MODIS Characterization and Support Team Presented By Truman Wilson
Closing the GEO-ring Tim Hewison
Characterizing DCC as invariant calibration target
Meteosat Second Generation
A Strategy for the Inter-Calibration of Solar Channels within GSICS
PATMOS-x AVHRR Calibration Update
Status of MODIS and VIIRS Reflective Solar Calibration
GRWG VIS/NIR sub-group briefing report
VIS/NIR sub-group discussion
Implementation of DCC at JMA and comparison with RTM
Himawari-8 Launch and its calibration approaches
Update on GSICS Product Development
Moving toward inter-calibration using the Moon as a transfer
Infrared Inter-Calibration Product Announcements
AIRS/GEO Infrared Intercalibration
Inter-calibration of the SEVIRI solar bands against MODIS Aqua, using Deep Convective Clouds as transfer targets Sébastien Wagner, Tim Hewison In collaboration.
The Aqua-MODIS calibration transfer using DCC
Moving toward inter-calibration using the Moon as a transfer
GOES DCC Deseasonalization & AHI DCC Calibration
Viju John, Rob Roebeling, Tim Hewison
Strawman Plan for Inter-Calibration of Solar Channels
Progress toward DCC Demo product
Spectral Correction for Inter-comparion between VIIRS and MODIS TEB
Inter-band calibration using the Moon
GSICS Annual Meeting March 06, 2019 Frascati, Italy
Impacts of I01 and M05 of S-NPP/VIIRS on AHI-VIIRS Ray-matching
Inter-calibrating polar imagers using SEVIRI as a transfer instrument
Andrew Heidinger JPSS Cloud Team Lead
The GSICS Lunar Observation Dataset
VIS/NIR sub-group discussion
Lunar Calibration Workshop Activities
Towards a GSICS DCC product...
Presentation transcript:

Using VIIRS I or M band as the calibration reference June 29, 2018 David Doelling

Introduction, VIIRS I and M band differences • Some VIIRS bands have both an I or M band • The 0.65µm, 0.87µm, and 1.6µm bands in the reflective solar bands • The M bands have a larger spatial pixels and should have less radiometric noise than the I bands, • If the 4 I band pixel radiances are averaged is that the equivalent noise of the M band? • The 0.87µm and 1.6µm I and M bands have very similar spectral response functions • The 0.65µm I and M bands have differing spectral response functions. This increases the SBAF uncertainty when scaling the radiometric calibration from one sensor to another.

Selection Criteria for the 0 Selection Criteria for the 0.65µm I or M band as the calibration reference M band I Band Radiometric noise M band has lower radiometric noise due to its larger pixel size I band has a higher radiometric noise, but when averaged should have the same noise as the M band Spectral response function The M band spectral response is very narrow and does not match the newer GEOs and MODIS B1 The I band spectral response is very similar to the newer GEOs and similar to the MODIS B1 SBAF uncertainty Increased SBAF uncertainty when transferring the VIIRS calibration reference Small SBAF uncertainty Dataset ease of use Just need to order the M band data and is less volume than the I band data May cause extra programming to handle both M and I band NPP VIIRS M5 and I1 calibration difference The NPP M5 band is 1.5% brighter than the I1 band, The NOAA-20 M5 band, and Aqua-MODIS B1

VIIRS I1 and M5 0.65µm spectral response

VIIRS I2/M7 and I3/M10 spectral response 0.86µm bands 1.6µm bands

VIIRS I1 and M5 and MODIS B1 SBAF uncertainty Aqua-MODIS B1 Libya-4, I1 Libya-4, M5 SBAF sigma (%) I1 M5 Libya-4 0.15 0.37 DCC 0.06 0.21 Tropical Ocean 0.24 0.97 Polar intersects 0.52 1.41

VIIRS I1 and M5 and GOES-16 B2, SBAF uncertainty Met 8-11, GOES-16/Him-8 Sonoran, I1 Sonoran, M5 SBAF sigma (%) I1 M5 Libya-4 0.03 0.34 DCC 0.02 0.19 Tropical Ocean 0.06 0.87 Sonoran 0.04 0.72

VIIRS I1 and M5 and GEO, SBAF uncertainty Meteosat-7 FY-2E GOES-15 SBAF sigma (%) I1 M5 Libya-4 1.33 1.67 DCC 0.83 0.92 Tropical Ocean 2.12 2.81 Arabia-1 1.29 SBAF sigma (%) I1 M5 Libya-4 0.94 1.15 DCC 0.58 0.57 Tropical Ocean 1.49 2.12 Badain 1.17 1.12 SBAF sigma (%) I1 M5 Libya-4 0.38 0.67 DCC 0.20 0.25 Tropical Ocean 0.86 1.46 Sonoran 0.70 1.37

Conclusions Select the M bands, since they have larger pixels and therefor have less radiometric uncertainty if the spectral response is the same For I1 and M5 bands, the spectral response differs. Most of the concurrent GEO and MODIS imagers have spectral responses more similar to M5 than I1. The I1 band SBAF uncertainty is less for the concurrent GEO and MODIS imagers. If the GEO imagers have very broad SRF than the SBAFs are similar But the I1 radiometric noise is larger. If 4 I1 pixels are averaged the radiometric noise should be similar Most also consider data availability and programming ease.