Walton McBride U.S. Naval Research Lab, Stennis Space Center MS Robert Arnone University of Southern Mississippi, Stennis Space Center MS Jean-François.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 5 Multiple Linear Regression
Advertisements

OSE meeting GODAE, Toulouse 4-5 June 2009 Interest of assimilating future Sea Surface Salinity measurements.
15 May 2009ACSPO v1.10 GAC1 ACSPO upgrade to v1.10 Effective Date: 04 March 2009 Sasha Ignatov, XingMing Liang, Yury Kihai, Boris Petrenko, John Stroup.
Pathfinder –> MODIS -> VIIRS Evolution of a CDR Robert Evans, Peter Minnett, Guillermo Podesta Kay Kilpatrick (retired), Sue Walsh, Vicki Halliwell, Liz.
GHRSST XI Science Team Meeting, ST-VAL, June 2010, Lima, Peru Recent developments to the SST Quality Monitor (SQUAM) and SST validation with In situ.
 Objective: To look for relationships between two quantitative variables.
FTP Biostatistics II Model parameter estimations: Confronting models with measurements.
1 High resolution SST products for 2001 Satellite SST products and coverage In situ observations, coverage Quality control procedures Satellite error statistics.
VIIRS Cloud Phase Validation. The VIIRS cloud phase algorithm was validated using a 24-hour period on November 10, Validation was performed using.
Scatterplots, Association, and Correlation 60 min.
Some Terms Y =  o +  1 X Regression of Y on X Regress Y on X X called independent variable or predictor variable or covariate or factor Which factors.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved Least Squares Regression Models.
Sandra Castro, Gary Wick, Peter Minnett, Andrew Jessup & Bill Emery.
European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2006 Vienna, Austria, 02 – 07 April 2006 Paper’s objectives: 1. Contribute to the validation of MODIS aerosol.
Characterizing and comparison of uncertainty in the AVHRR Pathfinder SST field, Versions 5 & 6 Robert Evans Guilllermo Podesta’ RSMAS Nov 8, 2010 with.
Lecture 24: Thurs. Dec. 4 Extra sum of squares F-tests (10.3) R-squared statistic (10.4.1) Residual plots (11.2) Influential observations (11.3,
GOES-13 Science Team Report SST Images and Analyses Eileen Maturi, STAR/SOCD, Camp Springs, MD Andy Harris, CICS, University of Maryland, MD Chris Merchant,
Objective: Work with the WRAP, CenSARA, CDPHE, BLM and EPA Region 8 to use satellite data to evaluate the Oil and Gas (O&G) modeled NOx emission inventories.
Quantitative Business Analysis for Decision Making Simple Linear Regression.
Copyright ©2006 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. More About Regression Chapter 14.
1 Improved Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analyses for Climate NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Thomas M. Smith Richard W. Reynolds Kenneth.
1 Sea Surface Temperature Analyses NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Richard W. Reynolds.
Relationships Among Variables
Copyright ©2011 Pearson Education 15-1 Chapter 15 Multiple Regression Model Building Statistics for Managers using Microsoft Excel 6 th Global Edition.
Correlation and Linear Regression
ElectroScience Lab IGARSS 2011 Vancouver Jul 26th, 2011 Chun-Sik Chae and Joel T. Johnson ElectroScience Laboratory Department of Electrical and Computer.
Scatterplots, Association, and Correlation Copyright © 2010, 2007, 2004 Pearson Education, Inc.
CRN Workshop, March 3-5, An Attempt to Evaluate Satellite LST Using SURFRAD Data Yunyue Yu a, Jeffrey L. Privette b, Mitch Goldberg a a NOAA/NESDIS/StAR.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 Image: MODIS Land Group, NASA GSFC March 2000 POES-GOES Blended SST Analysis.
1 FORECASTING Regression Analysis Aslı Sencer Graduate Program in Business Information Systems.
Scatterplots, Associations, and Correlation
“ New Ocean Circulation Patterns from Combined Drifter and Satellite Data ” Peter Niiler Scripps Institution of Oceanography with original material from.
“ Combining Ocean Velocity Observations and Altimeter Data for OGCM Verification ” Peter Niiler Scripps Institution of Oceanography with original material.
1 Chapter 7 Scatterplots, Association, and Correlation.
Introduction to Linear Regression
MODIS Sea-Surface Temperatures for GHRSST-PP Robert H. Evans & Peter J. Minnett Otis Brown, Erica Key, Goshka Szczodrak, Kay Kilpatrick, Warner Baringer,
Evaluation of Microwave Scatterometers and Radiometers as Satellite Anemometers Frank J. Wentz, Thomas Meissner, and Deborah Smith Presented at: NOAA/NASA.
8th IOCCG Meeting in Florence, Italy (24-26 Feb 03) Current Status of MODIS (Terra and Aqua) by Chuck Trees for the MODIS Team Members.
1 The GOES-R Rainfall Rate / QPE Algorithm Status May 1, 2011 Presented By: Bob Kuligowski NOAA/NESDIS/STAR.
Multiple Linear Regression. Purpose To analyze the relationship between a single dependent variable and several independent variables.
Real time Arctic SST retrieval from satellite IR data issues and solutions(?) Pierre Le Borgne, Gérard Legendre, Anne Marsouin, Sonia Péré, Hervé Roquet.
Application of in situ Observations to Current Satellite-Derived Sea Surface Temperature Products Gary A. Wick NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory With.
2nd GODAE Observing System Evaluation Workshop - June Ocean state estimates from the observations Contributions and complementarities of Argo,
How well can we model air pollution meteorology in the Houston area? Wayne Angevine CIRES / NOAA ESRL Mark Zagar Met. Office of Slovenia Jerome Brioude,
Ground and satellite-based night-time cloud identification techniques
1 RTM/NWP-BASED SST ALGORITHMS FOR VIIRS USING MODIS AS A PROXY B. Petrenko 1,2, A. Ignatov 1, Y. Kihai 1,3, J. Stroup 1,4, X. Liang 1,5 1 NOAA/NESDIS/STAR,
VALIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE GOES-R RAINFALL RATE ALGORITHM Background Robert J. Kuligowski, Center for Satellite Applications and Research, NOAA/NESDIS,
MARACOOS - International Constellation of Satellites – Since 1992 X-Band (installed 2003) L-Band (installed 1992) Sea Surface Temperature - SST Ocean.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 7 Scatterplots, Association, and Correlation.
Classification Ensemble Methods 1
An Examination Of Interesting Properties Regarding A Physics Ensemble 2012 WRF Users’ Workshop Nick P. Bassill June 28 th, 2012.
Retrieval Algorithms The derivations for each satellite consist of two steps: 1) cloud detection using a Bayesian Probabilistic Cloud Mask; and 2) application.
Ocean and Land Surface Characterization in the GPM Radar-Radiometer Combined Algorithm S. Joseph Munchak 1,2 *, William S. Olson 1,3, Mircea Grecu 1,4,
Formosat3/COSMIC Workshop, Taipei, Oct. 1-3, 2008 The Ionosphere as Signal and Noise in Radio Occultation Christian Rocken, Sergey Sokolovskiy, Bill Schreiner,
Infrared and Microwave Remote Sensing of Sea Surface Temperature Gary A. Wick NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory January 14, 2004.
NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory Gary A. Wick Observed Differences Between Infrared and Microwave Products Detailed comparisons between infrared.
November 28, 2006 Derivation and Evaluation of Multi- Sensor SST Error Characteristics Gary Wick 1 and Sandra Castro 2 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.
MODIS Atmosphere Products: The Importance of Record Quality and Length in Quantifying Trends and Correlations S. Platnick 1, N. Amarasinghe 1,2, P. Hubanks.
GHRSST HL_TAG meeting Copenhagen, March 2010 Validation of L2P products in the Arctic Motivation: Consistent inter-satellite validation of L2p SST observations.
The MODIS SST hypercube is a multi-dimensional look up table of SST retrieval uncertainty, bias and standard deviation, determined from comprehensive analysis.
2 Jun 09 UNCLASSIFIED 10th GHRSST Science Team Meeting Santa Rosa, CA 1 – 5 June Presented by Bruce McKenzie Charlie N. Barron, A.B. Kara, C. Rowley.
Characterizing and comparison of uncertainty in the AVHRR Pathfinder Versions 5 & 6 SST field to various reference fields Robert Evans Guilllermo Podesta’
EARWiG: SST retrieval issues for High Latitudes Andy Harris Jonathan Mittaz NOAA-CICS University of Maryland Chris Merchant U Edinburgh.
EARWiG: SST retrieval issues for TWP Andy Harris Jonathan Mittaz Prabhat Koner NOAA-CICS University of Maryland Eileen Maturi NOAA/NESDIS, Camp Springs,
New Australian High Resolution AVHRR SST Products from the Integrated Marine Observing System Presented at the GHRSST Users Symposium, Santa Rosa, USA,
1) Global Coefficients: Derived from all available cloud-free ASTER scenes for a given network SURFRAD: 246 scenesUSCRN: 371 scenes 2) Day/Night-Specific.
Sandra Castro and Gary Wick.  Does direct regression of satellite infrared brightness temperatures to observed in situ skin temperatures result in.
‘Aquarius’ Maps Ocean Salinity Fine-scale Structure
AVHRR and Ship IR sensor versus in situ SAIL, BOOM and CTD instruments
Presentation transcript:

Walton McBride U.S. Naval Research Lab, Stennis Space Center MS Robert Arnone University of Southern Mississippi, Stennis Space Center MS Jean-François Cayula Qinetiq North America, Stennis Space Center MS May 1, 2013 Improvements of Satellite SST Retrievals at Full Swath 1

2 A FRESH PERSPECTIVE Search for Clues on how to Improve SST Retrievals SST algorithms Used to Create Clues Scatter Plots Used to Identify Clues Model Run Results to Discern Clues Putting the Clues Together Interpretation of Results Conclusions

3 SST ALGORITHMS MC SST NL SST Tfield SST (same as MC SST, except for addition of T field as separate predictor) First guess temperature field

4 BUOY DATA SET NAVOCEANO buoy data set for the month of June 2012: 115,036 daytime points After routine NAVOCEANO filtering: 61,782 points from 0° to 53° zenith angle (53.70%) 97,496 points from 0° to 70° zenith angle (84.75%) Linear regression coefficients using MC SST: In the original spirit behind the MC SST formulation: where

MCSST Pinch effect No scatter Filtering Parameters |T field -Buoy| < 2.0° |Zenith| < 53 deg  distance < 25 km  time < 4 hours SST MC -T11 vs. T11-T12

MCSST Pinch effect Data displays scatter No scatter No Pinch effect Filtering Parameters |T field -Buoy| < 2.0° |Zenith| < 53 deg  distance < 25 km  time < 4 hours Goal is to capture the features and structure of the distribution. BUOY a b BUOY-T11 vs. T11-T12 SST MC -T11 vs. T11-T12

NLSST MCSST Pinch effect Data displays scatter No scatter Signs of scatter Pinch effect No Pinch effect Filtering Parameters |T field -Buoy| < 2.0° |Zenith| < 53 deg  distance < 25 km  time < 4 hours Goal is to capture the features and structure of the distribution. BUOY a b c BUOY-T11 vs. T11-T12 SST NL -T11 vs. T11-T12

Clim K100 K10 |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < rmserror Clim c 1 + c 5 |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < rmserror K100 c 1 + c 5 |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < |T field -Buoy| < rmserror K10 c 1 + c 5 Filtering Table1: Effects of pre-filtering and increased spatial resolution of Tfield. T field AS SEPARATE PREDICTOR

Blue  Red COLOR PLOTTING Red  Blue COLOR PLOTTING a c b d DATA MC SST

a b c d Blue  Red COLOR PLOTTING Red  Blue COLOR PLOTTING DATA Tfield SST with K10

From GUI results Using global coefficients e no K e to e to e to e to e to e to e to e |Zenith| Band #pts rmserror bias c 1 c 2 c 3 c 4 c 5 (c 1 +c 5 ) |Zenith| Band #pts rmserror bias rmserror bias +60 to to to to to to to Table 2: Coefficients Dependence on Zenith DEPENDENCE ON ZENITH ANGLE

From GUI results Using global coefficients e no K e to e to e to e to e to e to e to e Latitude Band #pts rmserror bias c 1 c 2 c 3 c 4 c 5 (c 1 +c 5 ) Latitude Band #pts rmserror bias rmserror bias +50 to to to to to to to Table 3: Coefficients Dependence on Latitude, Zenith 0 to 53 DEPENDENCE ON LATITUDE

Table 4: Percent reduction in rms error Zenith MCSST Tfield = Clim Tfield = K100 Tfield = K10 0 o to 53 o 53 o to 70 o 0 o to 70 o % % % % % % % % % RMS ERROR REDUCTION

c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 rmserror MCSST TfieldSST c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 rmserror MCSST TfieldSST Zenith angles from 0 to 53 degrees |Tfield-Tbuoy|=0.7° Zenith angles from 0 to 70 degrees |Tfield-Tbuoy|=0.7° ANOTHER CLUE! Clue 2:

15 PUTTING IT ALTOGETHER Clue 2: Clue 1: If the errors in T field and SST MC are uncorrelated, then the variances: Substituting: Simple Linear Weighting and where Past Present - Past or

16 SCATTER PLOT OF ERRORS R 2 < 0.04 Zenith angles from 0 to 70 degrees Blue  Red Color PlottingRed  Blue Color Plotting PRACTICALLY NO CORRELATION!

17 RMS ERRORS RELATIONSHIPS Guarantees that will always be less than or ! If the errors in T field and SST MC are uncorrelated, then the variances are related as: Resistors in Parallel Analogy

RMS ERRORS RELATIONSHIPS Interestingly, we have control of Tfield rms error through more aggressive filtering. But at what price?

Plot of rms error and % filtered points vs.|Tfield – Tbuoy| Zenith from 0  to 53  TRADE-OFF: rms error vs. # buoy data points SST MC weakly affected by aggressive filtering Stability Low Dropoff

Plot of rms error and % filtered points vs.|Tfield – Tbuoy| Zenith from 53  to 70  TRADE-OFF: rms error vs. # buoy data points SST MC weakly affected by aggressive filtering StabilityLow Dropoff

Plot of rms error and % filtered points vs.|Tfield – Tbuoy| Zenith from 0  to 70  TRADE-OFF: rms error vs. # buoy data points SST MC weakly affected by aggressive filtering Stability Low Dropoff

Zenith from 0 to 53 |Tfield-Tbuoy| = 0.7 MCSST TfieldSST with K10 Blue  Red Color Plotting Red  Blue Color Plotting EVIDENCE OF REAL RMS ERROR REDUCTION

Zenith from 53 to 70 |Tfield-Tbuoy| = 0.7 MCSST TfieldSST with K10 Blue  Red Color Plotting Red  Blue Color Plotting EVIDENCE OF REAL RMS ERROR REDUCTION

Zenith from 0 to 70 |Tfield-Tbuoy| = 0.7 MCSST TfieldSST with K10 Blue  Red Color Plotting Red  Blue Color Plotting EVIDENCE OF REAL RMS ERROR REDUCTION

25 HELP ME UNDERSTAND, LENA! SST MC

26 SST MC T field + uncorrelated noise HELP ME UNDERSTAND, LENA!

27 SST Tfield SST MC T field = + Always clearer image! HELP ME UNDERSTAND, LENA!

28 A FRESH PERSPECTIVE TWO-PRONGED IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS Using Satellite Data Only! NAVOCEANO K100, K10, K2 IN SITU BUOY DATA HIGH ZENITH ANGLES (emissivity, sea roughness) HARDWARE (2 or more looks) CLOUD MASK

29 CONCLUSIONS Although Tfield is used in NLSST, its additional information is tamed due to its appearance as a multiplier of T11-T12. Use of Tfield as a separate predictor results in a significant increase in accuracy for all existing SST algorithms, daytime and nighttime, due to resulting variance always being less. Tfield now is on equal footing with existing SST algorithms predicitions and improvements in its accuracy will benefit all combinations of existing SST algorithms and Tfield. TfieldSST algorithm was found to be extremely stable. Reduced to a formulation that leads to specific relationships between variances of MCSST and Tfield. NAVOCEANO’s Tfield characterizations, K100 and K10, only use previous satellite data. NAVOCEANO is currently working on K2, at 2km resolution. TfieldSST algorithm allows for rms error under 0.3  K over the full swath (0  to 70  ), while sacrificing a very modest number of buoy data points (from original 84.75%): 75% of buoy data points left from 0  to 70  with TfieldSST versus 55% of buoy data points left from from 0  to 53  PRESENTLY

30 QUESTIONS ?

Adding Tdiffoffset to NLSST Tdiffoffset = 0 rmserror = Tdiffoffset = -1 rmserror = Tdiffoffset = +10 rmserror = Tdiffoffset = +5 rmserror = Pinch effect moves to +1 Pinch effect Data Pinch effect disappears Scatter is more pronounced rmserror diminishes a c b d INCREASING T field IMPORTANCE