1. 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, September 26, 2011

2. SMOS PASSES USED IN THIS ANALYSIS

3. DRIFT IN 2010 ONLY

4. NO LOSS MODEL

5. ONE-SLOPE LOSS MODEL

6. TWO-SLOPE LOSS MODEL

7. EXTENSION THROUGH JUNE 2011

8. NO LOSS MODEL

9. ONE-SLOPE LOSS MODEL Notice the significant desc-asc bias now appearing with both one and two slope loss models between Nov 2010 and April 2011. It is of opposite sign to that between Sep and Dec 2010 observed with no loss model. It appears that the loss correction is too strong in this period.

10. TWO-SLOPE LOSS MODEL The two-slope model seems to degrade desc-asc bias relative to the one-slope model.

11. ONE-SLOPE LOSS MODEL: IMPACT OF GALACTIC REFLECTION MODEL It turns out that, for the metrics used here, the impact of the formulation of galactic noise scattering at the surface on desc-asc bias is quite small even for descending passes in September. Kirchhoff scattering model for galactic noise

12. ONE-SLOPE LOSS MODEL: IMPACT OF GALACTIC REFLECTION MODEL It turns out that, for the metrics used here, the impact of the formulation of galactic noise scattering at the surface on desc-asc bias is quite small even for descending passes in September. Flat surface reflection model for galactic noise

13. DRIFT METRICS

14. LONG TERM DRIFT JAN-DEC 2010

15. LONG TERM DRIFT JUN-DEC 2010

16. LONG TERM DRIFT JUNE 2010 – JUNE 2011 Considering the June 2010 to June 2011 period, there is very little net drift in the AF and EAF FoVs In the ascending passes.

17. SHORT TERM DRIFT IN 2010 AND 2011 The two-slope model seems to degrade desc-asc bias relative to the one-slope model. Two-slope degrades desc-asc consistency

18. LATEST OPERATIONAL BIAS CURVES

19. The following are bias curves for operational DPGS Level 1B data:

20. The following are bias curves for operational DPGS Level 1A data and using JRECON with no direct sun correction:

21. Comparing Original DPGS with L1PP

22. NO LOSS MODEL

23. LATEST OPERATIONAL BIAS CURVES

24. UPDATE ON GALACTIC NOISE MODEL

29. CELESTIAL SKY NOISE MAPS

30. HOVMOLLER PLOTS OF REFLECTED SKY NOISE

31. SMOS RESIDUALS BASED ON COMMISSIONING REPROCESSING DATA

33. FITTING A GEOMETRIC OPTICS MODEL TO THE RESIDUALS

38. CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH THE CELESTIAL SKY MAPS

42. NEW SEMI-EMPIRICAL MODEL

43. CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH THE CELESTIAL SKY MAPS ORIGINAL KIRCHHOFF MODEL

44. CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH THE CELESTIAL SKY MAPS NEW SEMI-EMPIRICAL MODEL: Ascending Passes

45. CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH THE CELESTIAL SKY MAPS NEW SEMI-EMPIRICAL MODEL: Descending passes

46. IMPACT ON CELESTIAL SKY BIASES

47. BIAS: ORIGINAL KIRCHHOFF MODEL

48. BIAS: KIRCHHOFF MODEL EVALUATED AT 3 M/S WIND SPEED

49. BIAS: EMPIRICAL GEOMETRIC OPTIC

50. NEW SEMI-EMPIRICAL GO MODEL SWATH RESULTS

51. IMPACT ON SWATH BIASES: ALIAS-FREE FIELD OF VIEW

54. IMPACT OF GALACTIC MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS

55. IMPACT OF GALACTIC NOISE MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS The curves show the contribution of scattered celestial sky noise to FoV biases, based upon the Kirchhoff model evaluated at a 3 m/s wind speed.

56. IMPACT OF GALACTIC NOISE MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS Similar to previous slide but for the flat surface reflected celestial sky noise.

57. IMPACT OF GALACTIC NOISE MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS The bias curves below were computed using the original Kirchhoff model evaluated at a 3 m/s wind speed.

58. IMPACT OF GALACTIC NOISE MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS With the new empirical geometric optics model the curves change very little.

59. IMPACT OF GALACTIC NOISE MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS Even switching to flat surface reflected galactic noise makes little difference:

60. IMPACT OF GALACTIC NOISE MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS For these curves we have used the original theoretical roughness emission model. This also makes little difference.

61. IMPACT OF GALACTIC NOISE MODEL ON BIAS TREND ANALYSIS