SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 L2OS: Product performance summary v550 highlights 1 The SMOS L2 OS Team

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 Many presentations made on SSS retrieval issues starting at IOCP Keypoint 1, plus several validation exercises using Argo floats data Present: First SMOS general reprocessing has provided a coherent data set built with L1OP 5.04 and L2OS 5.50 for product performance analysis SMOS L2 OS Product Performance Status Report issue 2.3, October 2012 (draft under improvement): –Status of main SSS retrieval problems –Analysis of one year of SMOS salinity, 2011 –User Data Product performance review –Status tables for UDP fields: grid point data, salinity, flags and quality descriptors SMOS L2OS performance 2

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 L2OS versionL2OS delivery date L2 installation date 03_1022/10/200928/11/ _1107/01/201028/01/ _1228/01/2010not installed 03_1309/02/201014/02/ _1426/03/201012/04/ _1514/05/201025/05/ _1621/06/201006/07/ _1722/11/201008/03/ _0027/05/201119/10/ _5017/11/201115/12/ SMOS L2OS performance L2OS operational processor history reprocessing v550 main change: double OTT (asc/desc), updated monthly (bi- weekly and centered for reprocessing) Other minor 500 & 550 modifications (several flags/filtering improvements, bugs fixed, new LUTs for roughness,...) Strong impact of L1 modifications

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 Issues still degrading SMOS SSS retrieval. Different degrees of improvement with the new L1 & L2 processors versions: 1.Land contamination 2.RFI 3.Unrealistic drifts: long/short TB drifts, geophysical 4.Sun tails 5.Galactic noise modelling 6.Roughness effects 7.Auxiliary data quality: wind vector, TEC,... 3, 4, 5 impacting the spatial bias correction (OTT technique) 4 SMOS OS retrieval problems Paul (+ Nicolas) Paul, Joe (+Jérôme) Jacqueline Joe Paul

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 L1 346 (with bug corrected) + L climatology L L climatology RFI Land contamination Expected impact of Gibbs No flag filtering has been applied, to keep contaminated data RFI by C. Gabarró, ICM/SMOS-BEC 5

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 L L2 317 (with bug corrected) - climatology L L climatology L L

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 July 2011 reprocessed March 2011 reprocessed Asc-desc monthly average 7

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 September 2011 reprocessed November 2011 reprocessed 8 Asc-desc monthly average

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 H-Pol V-Pol Pre-launch roughness models and fitted to SMOS data Wind induced Tb at θ=32.5°from 3 models and SMOS data Pre-launch: bad fit to ECMW wind speed sensitivity Tuned after analysis of SMOS data: much better agreement Clear non-linear behaviour with wind speed H-Pol V-Pol Pre Post Roughness effects by S. Guimbard, ICM/SMOS-BEC 9

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October Roughness effects Differences between 3 roughness models: Highly reduced after fitting to SMOS data (SSS2 is now also semi-empiric) Yearly statistics of L3 1º x 1º monthly maps (filtering out wind >12 m/s): Global S. Pacific N. Pacific 60N-60S OTT region 45N-60N biasSTD biasSTD bias STD SSS1-SSS SSS1-SSS SSS2-SSS Variability in the SSS field due to the different roughness correction is lower than requirements (0.1 for 100 km 30 days averages)

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October Roughness effects Retrieved SSS using the three roughness models implemented in v550

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October After filtering by Dg_quality_SSSx Ascending orbit on 19 October 2012 Roughness effects

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October Product performance review Objective: to report performance of the fields in the User Data Product Analysis of SSS accuracy Analysis of quality descriptors (flags and counters) Summary in status tables No analysis for Acard (no in situ data for validation) No analysis for non-retrieved parameters (SST, WS) No analysis for by-products (modelled TBx,y,h,v at 42.5º)

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October days/1 o averaged SSS August 2011 Zonal average SMOS-Argo L1 v3.46 v5.04 L2OS v3.17 v Old processors New processors 14 by J. Martínez, ICM/SMOS-BEC Global SSS maps

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October SSS accuracy: first approach Zero order accuracy: comparison to climatology 2011 yearly statistics of 9- days L3 maps in 10ºx10º or 2ºx2º regions of contrasted conditions, different for ascending/descending -range usually OK -anomaly within few 0.1s -important asc/desc differ. -exception: RFI areas, low SST, high variability

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October Comparison SMOS-Argo: Proxy for absolute accuracy (with care due to Argo not samplig SSS). Only data set available for global analysis. More precise local comparisons possible (moored buoys, surface drifters) Diagnostic sites defined in Product Performance Evaluation Plan SSS accuracy: in situ validation Interesting ocean situations In situ sampling programs Expected problems

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October L3 binned products, filtering poor L2 grid points, wind <12 m/s, centre of swath, 2011 yearly statistics for ascending/descending/both orbits Different analysis methodologies: SMOS data selection (filtering by flags) Argo data selection and interpolation to (sub)surface values Match-up criteria Statistical approach BEC: 10-d/2º, monthly/1º maps, SSS3, 400 km, Argo 7.5m, box averaging LOCEAN: 50 km/15-d, 100 km/15-d collocations, SSS1 weighted, 300 km SSS accuracy: in situ validation

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October SSS accuracy: in situ validation BEC: 1º/30-d LOCEAN: 50 km/15-d ± ± ±up to 1.3

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 Validation in specific regions by J. Boutin et al., LOCEAN Bias STD Monthly 1º maps: regional comparison to Argo 19 SSS September 2011 SMOS (up), Argo (bottom) SMOS ascending orbits ±300 km 3-12 m/s wind

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 Interannual variability SMOS : ARGO : Big spatial SSS structures are qualitatively consistent between SMOS and ARGO SMOS provides higher spatial resolution (+coastal and RFI errors!) by S. Guimbard, ICM/SMOS-BEC 20

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 Based on regional computations (yearly averages) 21 SSS status summary table

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 Reported status for: –25 control flags –22 science flags –19 product confidence descriptors Fields name, definition, dependencies, thresholds, status, usability, comments example: status: OK = implementation checked comments: can include evaluation of flag usefulness in terms of its impact on filtering data to improve the quality of SSS maps. And eventually conclusions on the thresholds values. 22 Flags and descriptors

SMOS QWG-9, ESRIN October 2012 Analysis of reprocessed 2011 data set Main issues continue to be the same Linked to calibration, image reconstruction and modelling of geophysical variability L2OS team working on possible corrections First version of Product Performance Status Report well advanced: shaping information for users SMOS SSS globally not reaching mission requirements, regionally approaching them Conclusions 23