Scientific Quality Assessment LST 2018
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copernicus Global Land Operations – Lot 1 Date Issued: 05.11.2020 Issue: I1.10 Copernicus Global Land Operations “Vegetation and Energy” ”CGLOPS-1” Framework Service Contract N° 199494 (JRC) QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE VERSION 2.0 Issue I1.10 Organization name of lead contractor for this deliverable: IPMA Book Captain: João Paulo Martins Contributing Authors: Isabel Trigo Sandra Coelho e Freitas Sandra Gomes Copernicus Global Land Operations – Lot 1 Date Issued: 05.11.2020 Issue: I1.10 Dissemination Level PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) X RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Document-No. CGLOPS1_QAR_LST-V2.0 © C-GLOPS Lot1 consortium Issue: I1.10 Date: 05.11.2020 Page: 2 of 125 Copernicus Global Land Operations – Lot 1 Date Issued: 05.11.2020 Issue: I1.10 Document Release Sheet Book captain: João Paulo Martins Sign Date 05.11.2020 Approval: Roselyne Lacaze Sign Date. 12.11 2020 Endorsement: Michael Cherlet Sign Date Distribution: Public Document-No. CGLOPS1_QAR_LST-V2.0 © C-GLOPS Lot1 consortium Issue: I1.10 Date: 05.11.2020 Page: 3 of 125 Copernicus Global Land Operations – Lot 1 Date Issued: 05.11.2020 Issue: I1.10 Change Record Issue/Rev Date Page(s) Description of Change Release 07.02.2020 All Initial version I1.00 All Revision after external review I1.00 05.11.2020 I1.10 69-75 Add intercomparison with Sentinel-3 SLSTR LST Document-No. CGLOPS1_QAR_LST-V2.0 © C-GLOPS Lot1 consortium Issue: I1.10 Date: 05.11.2020 Page: 4 of 125 Copernicus Global Land Operations – Lot 1 Date Issued: 05.11.2020 Issue: I1.10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 14 1 Background of the document ............................................................................................. 17 1.1 Scope and Objectives............................................................................................................. 17 1.2 Content of the document....................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Related documents ............................................................................................................... 17 1.3.1 Applicable documents ................................................................................................................................ 17 1.3.2 Input ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 1.3.3 Output ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 2 Review of Users Requirements ........................................................................................... 19 3 Review of the Copernicus Global Land LST and changes in v2.0 .......................................... 22 Change .................................................................................................................................... 25 4 Evaluation of the new product version impact ................................................................... 26 4.1 Overall procedure ................................................................................................................. 26 4.2 Impact of Dynamic FCOVER ................................................................................................... 26 4.2.1 GOES-16 ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2 Himawari-8.................................................................................................................................................. 36 4.3 Impact of new calibration Coefficients ................................................................................... 41 4.3.1 GOES-16 ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 4.3.2 Himawari-8.................................................................................................................................................. 44 4.4 Combined effect of New FCOVER and New Coefficients .......................................................... 47 4.4.1 GOES-16 ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.4.2 Himawari-8.................................................................................................................................................. 50 4.5 Spatial Coverage .................................................................................................................... 53 4.6 Change of Time slots used for MSG ........................................................................................ 56 5 Impact on validation statistics ........................................................................................... 58 5.1 In situ comparisons ............................................................................................................... 58 5.1.1 Station descriptions .................................................................................................................................... 60 5.1.2 Evaluation metrics ...................................................................................................................................... 64 5.1.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 64 5.2 Comparison with Sentinel-3 SLSTR LST ................................................................................... 69 Document-No. CGLOPS1_QAR_LST-V2.0 © C-GLOPS Lot1 consortium Issue: I1.10 Date: 05.11.2020 Page: 5 of 125 Copernicus Global Land Operations – Lot 1 Date Issued: 05.11.2020 Issue: I1.10 5.2.1 Spatial comparisons .................................................................................................................................... 70 5.2.2 In situ comparisons ..................................................................................................................................... 74 6 Overlapping regions .......................................................................................................... 76 6.1 Intersection between GOES and MSG (A1) ............................................................................. 76 6.2 Intersection between MSG 0° and IODC (A2) .......................................................................... 79 6.3 Intersection between IODC and Himawari (A3) ...................................................................... 82 7 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 86 8 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 90 9 References ........................................................................................................................ 91 ANNEX 1 - In situ station representativity ................................................................................. 93 Document-No. CGLOPS1_QAR_LST-V2.0 © C-GLOPS Lot1 consortium Issue: I1.10 Date: 05.11.2020 Page: 6 of 125 Copernicus Global Land Operations – Lot 1 Date Issued: 05.11.2020 Issue: I1.10 List of Figures Figure 1: Main properties of the calibration database atmospheric profiles used in the determination of the model coefficients for GOES and Himawari-8. (a) Total Column of Water Vapor (TCWV) distribution; (b) 푻푺풌풊풏 distribution; (c) bivariate 푻푪푾푽/푻푺풌풊풏 distribution and (d) geographical distribution (adapted from Martins et al., 2016). ..................................................................... 23 Figure 2: Illustration of the direction and duration of scanning of GEO satellites for the t UTC data. .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 3 – Comparison of Fraction of Vegetation Cover estimates used as input for CGLOPS v1.2. In the top row are the (a) median LSA-SAF FVC for 10-20 January 2019, (b) FCOVER used for GOES-16 – static value – and (c) their difference. In the bottom row, the corresponding estimates for 10-20 July 2019. All data are re-projected on a regular 0.1º grid. ...................... 27 Figure 4 – Impact of the introduction of CGLOPS FCOVER in v2.0, for January (top row) and July (bottom row). In the left, the FCOVER values used for v2.0 emissivity estimation. Central panels illustrate the difference between the new values and the static values used in v1.2. Right panels show the difference between LSA-SAF FVC product and the CGLOPS FCOVER product. ... 28 Figure 5 – Differences in IR1 emissivity in product v1.2. (a) 흐ퟏퟎ. ퟖ for MSG (b) 흐ퟏퟏ. ퟐ for GOES using static FCOVER; (c) Difference between 흐ퟏퟎ. ퟖ (MSG) and 흐ퟏퟏ. ퟐ (GOES) using static FCOVER (v1.2). (d), (e) and (f) show the corresponding values for July. ............................................... 29 Figure 6