BIAS TRENDS IN THE 1-SLOPE (REPROCESSING) AND CALIBRATED L1 BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURES Joe Tenerelli SMOS Payload Calibration Meeting 11 20-21 September 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
22 March 2011: GSICS GRWG & GDWG Meeting Daejeon, Korea Tim Hewison SEVIRI-IASI Inter-calibration Uncertainty Evaluation.
Advertisements

Calibration Method of Microwave Tb for Retrieving Accurate SST Akira Shibata JAXA / EORC Advances of Satellite Oceanography at Vladivostok, Oct. 3-6, 2007.
1 © ACRI-ST, all rights reserved – 2012 Isotropic RFI detection Jean-Luc Vergely (ACRI-ST) Claire Henocq (ACRI-ST) Philippe Waldteufel (LATMOS)
SMOS L2 Ocean Salinity Commissioning Plan, 07/05/2009 Level 2 Ocean Salinity Processor Commissioning Plan 7 May 2009 ARGANS ACRI-ST ICM-CSIC.
SMOS L2 Ocean Salinity – Reprocessing Level 2 Ocean Salinity Reprocessing 17 September 2008.
SMOS L2 Ocean Salinity Level 2 Ocean Salinity L20S Tool Box Architecture & Release 27 June 2014 ARGANS & SMOS L2OS ESL.
SMOS L2 Ocean Salinity Reprocessed constant calibration L1c OTT drift study 13 April 2011 ARGANS & L2OS ESL ascendingdescending.
1 © ACRI-ST, all rights reserved – 2012 Galactic noise model adjustment Jean-Luc Vergely (ACRI-ST) Jacqueline Boutin (LOCEAN) Xiaobin Yin (LOCEAN)
UPDATE ON BIAS TRENDS, DIRECT SUN CORRECTION, AND ROUGHNESS CORRECTION Joe Tenerelli May 10, 2011.
AN INITIAL LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE NEW ANTENNA LOSS MODEL Joe Tenerelli SMOS QUALITY WORKING GROUP #4 7-9 March 2011.
PART 1: A Brief Comparison of Time- Latitude First Stokes Bias Structure in v505 and v620 PART 1: A Brief Comparison of Time- Latitude First Stokes Bias.
UPDATE ON SMOS LONG-TERM BIASES OVER THE OCEAN AND ROUGH SURFACE SCATTERING OF CELESTIAL SKY NOISE Joe Tenerelli SMOS L2OS Progress Meeting Arles, France,
REVIEW OF OBSERVED BIAS TRENDS OVER THE OCEAN AND POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PROCESSOR EVOLUTION Joe & Nicolas IFREMER/CLS ESL Quality Working Group #5 May 30-31,
PART 2: A QUICK COMPARISON OF V504 AND V620 GLOBAL MAPS Joe Tenerelli SMOS Calibration Meeting 18 26/05/2014.
F. Wentz, T. Meissner, J. Scott and K. Hilburn Remote Sensing Systems 2014 Aquarius / SAC-D Science Team Meeting November ,
OSE meeting GODAE, Toulouse 4-5 June 2009 Interest of assimilating future Sea Surface Salinity measurements.
26/11/2012 – Observatoire de Paris Analysis of wind speed evolution over ocean derived from altimeter missions and models M. Ablain (CLS)
SMOS L2 Ocean Salinity Level 2 Ocean Salinity Using TEC estimated from Stokes 3 24 October 2012 ACRI-st, LOCEAN & ARGANS SMOS+polarimetry.
1 © ACRI-ST, all rights reserved – 2012 TEC estimation Jean-Luc Vergely (ACRI-ST) Jacqueline Boutin (LOCEAN)
GLOBAL BIASES IN THE DWELL-LINE MEAN STOKES PARAMETERS FROM SMOS FOR NOVEMBER 2010 Joe Tenerelli 25 February 2011.
The Aquarius Salinity Retrieval Algorithm Frank J. Wentz and Thomas Meissner, Remote Sensing Systems Gary S. Lagerloef, Earth and Space Research David.
MIRAS performance based on OS data SMOS MIRAS IOP 6 th Review, ESAC – 17 June 2013 Prepared by: J. Font, SMOS Co-Lead Investigator, Ocean Salinity – ICM-CSIC.
Why the Earth has seasons  Earth revolves in elliptical path around sun every 365 days.  Earth rotates counterclockwise or eastward every 24 hours.
IFREMER EMPIRICAL ROUGHNESS MODEL Joe Tenerelli, CLS, Brest, France, November 4, 2010.
ElectroScience Lab Studies of Radio Frequency Interference in SMOS Observations IGARSS 2011 Joel T. Johnson and Mustafa Aksoy Department of Electrical.
Sea water dielectric constant, temperature and remote sensing of Sea Surface Salinity E. P. Dinnat 1,2, D. M. Le Vine 1, J. Boutin 3, X. Yin 3, 1 Cryospheric.
An Update on A Few Issues Relevant to Ocean Salinity Retrieval for SMOS Joe Tenerelli SMOS Quality Working Group 11 July ESA ESRIN.
1 Assessment of the CFSv2 real-time seasonal forecasts for Wanqiu Wang, Mingyue Chen, and Arun Kumar CPC/NCEP/NOAA.
Earth Science 17.3 Temperature Controls
Ifremer Planning of Cal/Val Activities during In orbit commisioning Phase N. Reul, J. Tenerelli, S. Brachet, F. Paul & F. Gaillard, ESL & GLOSCAL teams.
TIME SERIES by H.V.S. DE SILVA DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
Galactic noise model adjustment Jean-Luc Vergely (ACRI-ST) Jacqueline Boutin (LOCEAN) Xiaobin Yin (LOCEAN)
SMOS Science Workshop, Arles, th Sept, 2011 IMPROVING SMOS SALINITY RETRIEVAL: SYSTEMATIC ERROR DIAGNOSTIC J. Gourrion, R. Sabia, M. Portabella,
SMOS QWG-5, 30 May- 1 June 2011, ESRIN Ocean Salinity 1 1.Commissioning reprocessing analysis 2.New processor version: improvements and problems detected/solved.
UPDATE ON THE SUN GLINT Joe Tenerelli Ocean Data Lab SMOS Level 2 OS Progress Meeting 26 SMOS Barcelona Expert Centre Barcelona, Spain April 2015.
A REVIEW OF BIAS PATTERNS IN THE MIRAS BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURES OVER THE OCEAN Joe Tenerelli SMOS Quality Working Group # Feb 2013 ESRIN.
Development and evaluation of Passive Microwave SWE retrieval equations for mountainous area Naoki Mizukami.
DATA ANALYSIS PROJECT SIMONE PHILLIPS 24 APRIL 2014 EAS 4480.
Satellite Sea-surface Salinity: Data and Product Biases and Differences Eric Bayler and Li Ren NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research.
Henry Fuelberg Pete Saunders Pendleton, Oregon Research Region Map Types and Lightning Frequencies.
SPCM-9, Esac, May 3 rd, 2012 MODEL-INDEPENDENT ESTIMATION OF SYSTEMATIC ERRORS IN SMOS BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURE IMAGES J. Gourrion, S. Guimbard, R. Sabia,
Level 2 Algorithm. Definition of Product Levels LevelDescription Level 1 1A Reconstructed unprocessed instrument data 1B Geolocated, calibrated sensor.
OS-ESL meeting, Barcelona, February nd, 2011 OTT sensitivity study and Sun correction impact J. Gourrion and the SMOS-BEC team SMOS-BEC, ICM/CSIC.
Sophie RICCI CALTECH/JPL Post-doc Advisor : Ichiro Fukumori The diabatic errors in the formulation of the data assimilation Kalman Filter/Smoother system.
EXTENDING THE LAND SEA CONTAMINATION CHARACTERIZATION TO THE EXTENDED ALIAS- FREE FIELD OF VIEW Joe Tenerelli (CLS) and Nicolas Reul (IFREMER) SMOS Quality.
Optimization of L-band sea surface emissivity models deduced from SMOS data X. Yin (1), J. Boutin (1), N. Martin (1), P. Spurgeon (2) (1) LOCEAN, Paris,
The climate and climate variability of the wind power resource in the Great Lakes region of the United States Sharon Zhong 1 *, Xiuping Li 1, Xindi Bian.
Objective Data  The outlined square marks the area of the study arranged in most cases in a coarse 24X24 grid.  Data from the NASA Langley Research Center.
SMOS QWG-6, ESRIN October 2011 OTT generation strategy and associated issues 1 The SMOS L2 OS Team.
Space Reflecto, November 4 th -5 th 2013, Plouzané Characterization of scattered celestial signals in SMOS observations over the Ocean J. Gourrion 1, J.
USE OF AIRS/AMSU DATA FOR WEATHER AND CLIMATE RESEARCH Joel Susskind University of Maryland May 12, 2005.
USING SMOS POLARIMETRIC BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURES TO CORRECT FOR ROUGH SURFACE EMISSION BEFORE SALINITY INVERSION.
SMOS-BEC – Barcelona (Spain) LO calibration frequency impact Part II C. Gabarró, J. Martínez, V. González, A. Turiel & BEC team SMOS Barcelona Expert Centre.
SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team.
SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 L2OS: Product performance summary v550 highlights 1 The SMOS L2 OS Team.
Evaluation of OMI total column ozone with four different algorithms SAO OE, NASA TOMS, KNMI OE/DOAS Juseon Bak 1, Jae H. Kim 1, Xiong Liu 2 1 Pusan National.
T. Meissner and F. Wentz Remote Sensing Systems 2014 Aquarius / SAC-D Science Team Meeting November , 2014 Seattle. Washington,
Indo-Pacific Sea Surface Temperature Influences on Failed Consecutive Rainy Seasons over Eastern Africa** Andy Hoell 1 and Chris Funk 1,2 Contact:
SMOS Science Meeting September 2011 Arles, FR Simulating Aquarius by Resampling SMOS Gary Lagerloef, Yann Kerr & Eric Anterrieu and Initial Results.
Interannual to decadal variability of circulation in the northern Japan/East Sea, Dmitry Stepanov 1, Victoriia Stepanova 1 and Anatoly Gusev.
Impact of sea surface roughness on SMOS measurements A new empirical model S. Guimbard & SMOS-BEC Team SMOS Barcelona Expert Centre Pg. Marítim de la Barceloneta.
UPDATE ON GALACTIC NOISE CORRECTION Joe Tenerelli SMOS Quality Working Group #9 ESA ESRIN 24 October 2012.
Dependence of SMOS/MIRAS brightness temperatures on wind speed: sea surface effect and latitudinal biases Xiaobin Yin, Jacqueline Boutin LOCEAN.
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya CORRECTION OF SPATIAL ERRORS IN SMOS BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURE IMAGES L. Wu, I. Corbella, F. Torres, N. Duffo, M. Martín-Neira.
MODIS Atmosphere Products: The Importance of Record Quality and Length in Quantifying Trends and Correlations S. Platnick 1, N. Amarasinghe 1,2, P. Hubanks.
Blending multiple-source wind data including SMOS, SMAP and AMSR-2 new products Joe TENERELLI, Fabrice COLLARD OceanDataLab, Brest, France.
Observing Climate Variability and Change
Aquarius SSS space/time biases with respect to Argo data
Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute, Ansan, Republic of Korea
Presentation transcript:

BIAS TRENDS IN THE 1-SLOPE (REPROCESSING) AND CALIBRATED L1 BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURES Joe Tenerelli SMOS Payload Calibration Meeting September 2012

PLAN 1.Briefly describe procedure for calculating the biases between the reconstructed and modeled brightness temperatures; 2.Summarize the latitudinally averaged bias trends observed in SMOS brightness temperatures over the last two years. 3.Examine the possile impact of geopysical parameters on the descending-ascending bias differences; 4.Examine the correlation between the alias-free field of view bias, the antenna patch physical temperature and the most important geophysical parameters; 5.Examine the time-latitude structure of the biases.

HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED We do not include gridpoints within director cosine units of the domain boundaries. Averages are computed over both the alias-free (AF) and extended alias-free (EAF) portions of the field of view (FOV). We do not include gridpoints within director cosine units of the domain boundaries. bias STEP 1: For each scene of each half-orbit, compute the domain average of the difference (or bias) between reconstructed and modeled Stokes vector elements in the instrument polarization basis (Tx, Ty, Uxy, and Vxy).

HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED STEP 2: Filtering of scenes/snapshots. Scenes are then examined for possible contamination by direct sun aliases, land, ice, or radio frequency interference which could impact the statistics. Several filters are applied as outlined in the next few slides:

HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED FILTER 1: Any gridpoint within 0.1 director cosine units of any direct sun alias are also excluded from the averaging procedure.

HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED FILTER 2: Any scene for which the maximum value of |Tx| or |Ty| over the fundamental hexagon exceeds 500 K, or for which the maximum value of |Uxy| exceeds 230 K is excluded from the averaging. This filter is applied after correction by an OTT.

HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED FILTER 3: A land and ice filter is applied. Any scene for which the fraction of land in the earth portion of the entire fundamental hexagon exceeds 0.02 is removed. Likewise, any scene for which the ice fraction exceeds 0.05 is removed. Finally, gridpoints closer than 80 km from land are removed.

STEP 3: After the scene filtering, the filtered per-scene averages for all half-orbits for a given pass direction (ascending or descending) are collected into a set of global daily regular latitude-longitude grids, each with a grid spacing of 0.25 o in latitude and 1 o in longitude. These grids containing the per-scene filtered AF and EAF average biases. The plots below show, for both the reprocessing data (left) and the calibrated L1 test data(right) the number of ascending pass scenes collected in each gridbox over the entire period considered here (over two years). Reprocessing Data (1-Slope model)Calibrated L1 Test Orbits HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED

STEP 4: Creation of time-latitude profiles of bias (Hovmoller plots). For each day, each pass direction and each latitude, the (filtered) AF and EAF biases (as well as domain averaged geophysical parameters and model brightness temperatures) are averaged over all longitudes: HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED averaging over longitudes Filtered daily bias maps Time-latitude (Hovmoller) maps

STEP 5: Creation of latitudinally averaged bias curves: The time-latitude filtered and gridded domain (AF and EAF) averaged biases, geophysical parameters, and model solutions are averaged over a latitude band ranging from 60 o S to 5 o N. This is done for ascending and descending passes separately. The yellow box on the time-latitude Hovmoller plot (lower-left) shows the latitude band used for averaging. HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED averaging over latitude AF and EAF bias trend curves for asc/desc passes Time-latitude (Hovmoller) maps

NOTE: We have far fewer orbits for the calibrated L1 test than for the 1-slope Reprocessing data. But the bias results with the two methods are, nevertheless, are similar. The yellow boxes highlight latitude band used to compute the bias trend curves (ranging from 60 o S to 5 o N). Reprocessing Data (1-Slope model): The complete set of half-orbits obtained from ESA reprocessing campaign Calibrated L1 Test Orbits: A small subset of half-orbits processed by ESA on GPOD HOW BIASES ARE COMPUTED

TEMPORAL FILTERING OF BIAS TRENDS STEP 6: Temporal filtering. After obtaining the domain and latitudinally averaged biases between brightness temperatures obtained from MIRAS and the forward ocean model (MIRAS-model), a running 10-day smoother is applied to smooth out the small-scale ripples in the time series. The impact of this filter is shown below for both the calibrated L1 test orbits (left) and the complete set of orbits from the first reprocessing. The results also illustrate the impact of the reduced set of orbits used to test the calibrated L1 method.

TEMPORAL FILTERING OF BIAS TRENDS Note that the unfiltered bias curve for reprocessing 1-slope data (red curve, right panel) is smoother than that for the calibrated L1 data (red curve, left panel) because these curves are averages over both longitude and latitude, and as we saw on the previous slides we have much more coverage in the reprocessing 1-slope data. Impact of smoothing much greater for Cal L1 than for the 1-Slope model owing to far fewer half-orbits in the average for Cal L1.

A LOOK AT THE BIAS TRENDS Having established the method used to evaluate the bias between the reconstructed and model brightness temperatures in the instrument polarization basis (Tx,Ty,Uxy,Vxy), we now move on to present the biases for both the most recent ESA reprocessing campaign, which employed the ‘1-slope’ loss model, and the ‘calibrated L1’ method recently proposed. Below is an outline of which follows: 1.Examination of biases averaged over longitude and latitude, including a look at coherence with variations in the corresponding average Tp7; 2.Examination of the potential impact of geophysical parameters on descending-ascending bias differences; 3.Examination of the correlation between bias variations and variations in Tp7 and several geophysical parameters; 4.Examination of time-latitude structure of the bias, which highlights the strong high-latitude bias variations late in each year.

A LOOK AT THE BIAS TRENDS Having established the method used to evaluate the bias between the reconstructed and model brightness temperatures in the instrument polarization basis (Tx,Ty,Uxy,Vxy), we now move on to present the biases for both the most recent ESA reprocessing campaign, which employed the ‘1-slope’ loss model, and the ‘calibrated L1’ method recently proposed. Below is an outline of which follows: 1.Examination of biases averaged over longitude and latitude, including a look at coherence with variations in the corresponding average Tp7; 2.Examination of the potential impact of geophysical parameters on descending-ascending bias differences; 3.Examination of the correlation between bias variations and variations in Tp7 and several geophysical parameters; 4.Examination of time-latitude structure of the bias, which highlights the strong high-latitude bias variations late in each year.

IMPORTANT REMINDER BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE BIASES

0.4 K/psu0.7 K/psu The sensitivity of L-band brightness temperature (Tx+Ty)/2=(Th+Tv)/2 to sea surface salinity depends upon the sea surface temperature (SST), but ranges from about -0.4 K/psu in cold water to about -0.7 K/psu in warm water. These are important numbers to keep in mind when we consider brightness temperature biases in what follows. (Tx+Ty)/2 bias +1 K SSS bias -2 psu (independent of incidence angle)

BIAS TRENDS AVERAGED OVER LONGITUDE AND LATITUDE We begin by comparing AF and EAF descending and ascending pass bias trends for the calibrated L1 test (left) and the 1-slope reprocessing data (right).The trends are similar but there is an offset between the two methods. Most noticeable is the descending pass K dropoff around Sep-Nov, equivalent to a SSS increase of around 2 psu! Note that the dropoff is larger with Cal L1 than with the 1-slope model (yellow circles). This may be a result of differences in the set of half-orbits used for the two calibration methods.

BIAS TRENDS AVERAGED OVER THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE We now consider only the AF FOV and overlay Tp7 in green (adjusted to zero time mean). For descending passes variations in Tp7 and the biases seem to exhibit a clear phase relationship. For ascending passes the relationship between Tp7 and the biases is less clear. Descending pass Tp7 adjusted to zero time meanAscending pass Tp7 adjusted to zero time mean

BIAS TRENDS AVERAGED OVER THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE We now consider the difference between descending and ascending pass biases for both calibration methods. A clear annual cycle is apparent with similar trends in the AF and EAF fields of view. Also, between November and March the AF and EAF biases separate (circled in yellow). This separation in more pronounced in Cal L1 than in the 1-slope results. Possibly related to error in galactic scattering model Separation between EAF and AF biases greater for Cal L1 than for 1-slope model. Possibly related to differences in the sets orbits used.

BIAS TRENDS AVERAGED OVER THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE We now overlay the (zero mean) difference between descending and ascending Tp7. There is some apparent correspondence between variations in Tp7 and the annual cycle in the biases:

CONCLUSION #1 The latitudinally averaged AF and EAF bias trends for the 1-Slope and Calibrated L1 methods are very similar. Differences may be related to differences in the orbit sets used for analysis. Both methods yield a strong seasonal cycle in (Tx+Ty)/2 bias of about 1 kelvin in peak-to-peak amplitude with a distinct minimum in the reconstructed brightness temperatures toward the end of each year. This cycle is associated with a seasonal cycle in the mean retrieved sea surface salinity (SSS) bias of nearly 2 psu in peak-to- peak amplitude (without periodic OTT correction).

A LOOK AT THE BIAS TRENDS Having established the method used to evaluate the bias between the reconstructed and model brightness temperatures in the instrument polarization basis (Tx,Ty,Uxy,Vxy), we now move on to present the biases for both the most recent ESA reprocessing campaign, which employed the ‘1-slope’ loss model, and the ‘calibrated L1’ method recently proposed. Below is an outline of which follows: 1.Examination of biases averaged over longitude and latitude, including a look at coherence with variations in the corresponding average Tp7; 2.Examination of the potential impact of geophysical parameters on descending-ascending bias differences; 3.Examination of the correlation between bias variations and variations in Tp7 and several geophysical parameters; 4.Examination of time-latitude structure of the bias, which highlights the strong high-latitude bias variations late in each year.

We now briefly examine the extent to which the scene bright model may contribute to the descending-ascending difference in (Tx+Ty)/2. This should provide an indication of the possible influence of variability in the scene sampling. The result is that only scattered galacitc radiation contributes significantly to the descending-ascending differences. IMPACT OF GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS ON THE BIAS TRENDS Specular emission refl galactic Rough emissionatm emission scat galactic Only the scattered/reflected galactic radiation contributes significantly to descending- ascending differences in (Tx+Ty)/2 Green curves = modeled contributions to desc-asc (Tx+Ty)/2 from various radiation sources

CONCLUSION #2 Of all main geophysical contributions to the descending-ascending differences in (Tx+Ty)/2, scattered galactic radiation is the only significant one, and this is taken into account in the bias calculations. Some potential for error remains in this model, but the impact should be less than a few tenths of a kelvin and limited to descending passes in September-October.

A LOOK AT THE BIAS TRENDS Having established the method used to evaluate the bias between the reconstructed and model brightness temperatures in the instrument polarization basis (Tx,Ty,Uxy,Vxy), we now move on to present the biases for both the most recent ESA reprocessing campaign, which employed the ‘1-slope’ loss model, and the ‘calibrated L1’ method recently proposed. Below is an outline of which follows: 1.Examination of biases averaged over longitude and latitude, including a look at coherence with variations in the corresponding average Tp7; 2.Examination of the potential impact of geophysical parameters on descending-ascending bias differences; 3.Examination of the correlation between bias variations and variations in Tp7 and several geophysical parameters; 4.Examination of time-latitude structure of the bias, which highlights the strong high-latitude bias variations late in each year.

CROSS CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND TP7 In the slides that follow we present the cross correlations between a number of variables averaged over the alias- free field of view and expressed as functions of latitude and time. The correlations are computed over variations in both time and latitude.

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND TP7 We begin this section by noting that there is a very large cross correlation between Tp7 and the bias in (Tx+Ty)/ in descending passes. The correlation exceeds 0.9 in magnitude between 60 o S and 5 o N latitude!

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND TP7 We have computed the correlation coefficient between (Tx+Ty)/2 and various AF-FOV averaged parameters, including Tp7 (lower right panel). SLP Tp7WSCWV SSTSSS

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND TP7 For descending passes the large correlation between the bias in (Tx+Ty)/2 and the parameters shown involves Tp7! SLP Tp7WSCWV SSTSSS

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND TP7 For ascending passes the situation is less clear: SLP Tp7WSCWV SSTSSS

We next arrange the cross correlations between all combinations of variables into a matrix. Note the strong correlation between wind speed and (Tx+Ty)/2 (st1) that appears to be related to the correlation between wind speed and Tp7 (owing to latitude dependence of these two variables): CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND TP7 DESCENDING PASSES St1=(Tx+Ty)/2 Correlations between wind speed, tp7 and first stokes! Correlations between 1)sst and sss; 2)sst and columnar water vapor; 3)sss and slp.

ASCENDING PASSES St1=(Tx+Ty)/2 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, GEOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS, AND TP7 The correlation matrix for ascending passes does not exhibit the same dominant correlation between Tp7 and the first Stokes parameter. Much smaller correlations between wind speed, tp7 and first stokes for ascending passes than for descending passes!

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIATIONS IN (Tx+Ty)/2, FORWARD MODEL COMPONENTS, AND TP7 We next formed similar matrices for various components of the scene brightness model, including roughness emission (rgh), atmospheric emission (atm), specular emission (flt), and galactic reflection (gal): DESCENDING PASSES Correlations between roughness emission, tp7 and first stokes!

CONCLUSION #3 Descending passes exhibit strong correlation between (Tx+Ty)/2 bias and Tp7 (correlation coefficient around -0.9). Ascending passes do not exhibit this strong correlation.

A LOOK AT THE BIAS TRENDS Having established the method used to evaluate the bias between the reconstructed and model brightness temperatures in the instrument polarization basis (Tx,Ty,Uxy,Vxy), we now move on to present the biases for both the most recent ESA reprocessing campaign, which employed the ‘1-slope’ loss model, and the ‘calibrated L1’ method recently proposed. Below is an outline of which follows: 1.Examination of biases averaged over longitude and latitude, including a look at coherence with variations in the corresponding average Tp7; 2.Examination of the potential impact of geophysical parameters on descending-ascending bias differences; 3.Examination of the correlation between bias variations and variations in Tp7 and several geophysical parameters; 4.Examination of time-latitude structure of the bias, which highlights the strong high-latitude bias variations late in each year.

DESCENDING PASSES, REPROCESSING DATA The bias trends presented earlier involved averages over latitude from 60 o S to 5 o N. But there is a seasonal evolution of the latitudinal (orbital time scale) variation of bias, especially in descending passes.

DESCENDING PASSES, CAL L1 TEST DATA The same plot but for the calibrated L1 data shows trends similar to those for the reprocessing data except for a slightly higher amplitude in the seasonal oscillation. High latitude positive bias in (Tx+Ty)/2 just after the sun eclipse

DESCENDING PASSES, REPROCESSING DATA The seasonal evolution of the latitudinal (orbital time scale) variation of bias is smaller in amplitude in ascending than in descending passes, but there is a strong seasonal cycle in the latitudinally averaged bias:

DESCENDING PASSES, TP7 The bias north of 30 o N late in the year corresponds to a negative deviation in Tp7: High latitude negative deviation in Tp7 in the same area.

DESCENDING PASSES, TP6 Tp6 also exhibits a (much smaller) negative deviation in the same area: High latitude negaitve deviation in Tp6 in the same area.

DESCENDING PASSES, RMS ERROR The spatial AF-FOV RMS error between model and the data exhibits a clear increase from 2010 to 2011, but only toward the end of the year. RMS error increases significantly from end of 2010 to end of 2011.

DESCENDING PASSES, SUN ALIAS BRIGHTNESS The sun angle from boresight exhibits a pattern quite coherent with the evolution of the spatial RMS error. In particular the RMS error is large where the sun angle from boresight is small: Sun angle from boresight is at a minimum in this high- latitude region at the end of the year.

DESCENDING PASSES, SUN ALIAS BRIGHTNESS The portion of the time-latitude plots where the sun is eclipsed is very small but is near the strong RMS error and bias features: Sun is eclipsed by the earth over a very small portion of the hovmoller plots.

DESCENDING PASSES, SUN ALIAS BRIGHTNESS Coincidentally, the average bias in a disc of radius 0.1 in dc coordinates centered on the lower left direct sun alias exhibits maximum in the same high-latitude area towards the end of 2010 and 2011: Lower-left sun alias bias in (Tx+Ty)/2 also slightly increases from 2010 to 2011.

EVOLUTION OF SUN BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURE AT L-BAND For reference, the sun brightness temperature at L-band increased significantly between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011: Time period of high latitude biases Big jump in sun L-band Tb from end of 2010 to end of 2011!

CONCLUSION #4 Time-latitude plots of the AF-FOV mean bias between reconstructed and modeled (Tx+Ty)/2 reveal significant latitudinal structure that is not revealed in the latitudinally averaged bias curves. This structure is especially strong in descending passes north of about 30 o N toward the end of each year. Moreover, this region of high latitudinaly gradient in the bias coincides with a region of high spatial RMS error, a minimum in the sun angle from boresight, strongly varying Tp7 and Tp6, and strongly varying (Tx+Ty)/2 bias averaged within a disc of radius 0.1 dc units centered on the lower-left sun alias. The spatial RMS error in this high-latitude region is much stronger in 2011 than in Coincidentally, the sun brightness temperature at L-band increases significantly between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1.Both the ‘1-Slope’ and ‘Calibrated L1’ calibration methods yield a strong seasonal cycle in (Tx+Ty)/2 bias of about 1 kelvin in peak-to-peak amplitude with a distinct minimum in the reconstructed brightness temperatures toward the end of each year. This cycle is associated with a seasonal cycle in the mean retrieved sea surface salinity (SSS) bias of nearly 2 psu in peak-to-peak amplitude (without periodic OTT correction). 2.Of all main geophysical contributions to the descending-ascending differences in (Tx+Ty)/2, scattered galactic radiation is the only significant one, and this is taken into account in the bias calculations. 3.Descending passes exhibit strong correlation between (Tx+Ty)/2 bias and Tp7 (correlation coefficient around -0.9). 4.Time-latitude plots of the AF-FOV mean bias between reconstructed and modeled (Tx+Ty)/2 reveal significant latitudinal structure that is not revealed in the latitudinally averaged bias curves. This structure is especially strong in descending passes north of about 30 o N toward the end of each year. A number of other parameters also exhibit patterns coherent with the pattern of bias.