Simulation of Land Surface Temperature Inversion for Stratospheric Sensor

Song Ye; Qi Xiahou; Jun Wu; Wei Xiong; Fangxiao Cui; Dacheng Li

doi:10.3788/AOS202242.1201001

Acta Optica Sinica, Volume. 42, Issue 12, 1201001(2022)

Simulation of Land Surface Temperature Inversion for Stratospheric Sensor

Song Ye^1,3, Qi Xiahou^1,2, Jun Wu^2、*, Wei Xiong², Fangxiao Cui^2、**, and Dacheng Li²

¹School of Electronic Engineering and Automation, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin 541004, Guangxi, China

²Key Laboratory of General Optical Calibration and Characterization of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Anhui Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei 230031, Anhui, China

³Guangxi Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Information Processing, Guilin 541004, Guangxi, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(17)

Fig. 1. Comparison of simulated radiance and path transmittance from stratosphere and top (subgraphs show difference between stratospheric observation and satellite observation). (a) Simulated radiance; (b) path transmittance

Download full size

Fig. 2. Inversion flow chart of generalized split window algorithm

Download full size

Fig. 3. Fitting results of each interval. (a) TPW groups; (b) TPW and LST groups

Download full size

Fig. 4. Inversion results of split window algorithm .(a) Comparison between true value of LST and inversion value; (b) histogram of LST inversion error

Download full size

Fig. 5. LST inversion error. (a) LST inversion error under different water vapor content; (b) LST inversion error under different zenith angle

Download full size

Fig. 6. Split window coefficients at different observation heights. (a) TPW range of water vapor is [0,2] cm; (b) TPW range of water vapor is [3, 5] cm

Download full size

Fig. 7. Influence of surface emissivity uncertainty on LST inversion accuracy

Download full size

Fig. 8. Influence of emissivity uncertainty on LST inversion accuracy under different water vapor content and observation zenith angle. (a) Different water vapor content; (b) different observation zenith angles

Download full size

Fig. 9. Influence of NETD on LST inversion error

Download full size

Fig. 10. Effects of NETD on LST inversion accuracy under different water vapor content and observation zenith angle. (a) Different water vapor content; (b) different observation zenith angle

Download full size

Fig. 11. Influence of different spectral response offset on LST inversion accuracy

Download full size

Table 1. Group intervals of LST and TPW
View table
Table 1. Group intervals of LST and TPW
Group number LST /K TPW /cm
1 [0,2]
2 ≤282.5 [1.5,3.5]
3 [0,2]
4 [277.5, 297.5] [1.5,3.5]
5 [3,5]
6 [0,2]
7 [1.5,3.5]
8 [292.5, 312.5] [3,5]
9 [4.5,7.8]
10 [0,2]
11 [1.5,3.5]
12 ≥307.5 [3,5]
13 [4.5,7.8]

Table 2. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW sub-ranges

View table

Table 2. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW sub-ranges

TPW /cm	a₀	a₁	a₂	a₃	a₄	a₅	a₆	R²
[0, 2]	-1.0688	1.0033	0.1667	-0.5821	6.9824	-11.1592	26.3920	0.9997
[1.5, 3.5]	-6.4867	1.0223	0.1267	-0.4672	6.5545	30.2951	48.1165	0.9969
[3, 5]	-14.564	1.0492	0.0641	-0.1836	7.7634	26.6866	-22.0110	0.9933
[4.5, 8.0]	-17.189	1.0525	0.0800	-0.0906	10.1806	6.2320	-14.4950	0.9920

Table 3. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW and LST sub-ranges

View table

Table 3. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW and LST sub-ranges

LST /K	TPW /cm	a₀	a₁	a₂	a₃	a₄	a₅	a₆	R²
≤282.5	[0, 2]	-0.3740	1.0010	0.1602	-0.542	5.833	3.3499	3.1113	0.9998
	[1.5, 3.5]	8.4805	0.9690	0.1591	-0.522	8.124	4.5125	-56.8800	0.9774
	[0, 2]	-1.8840	1.0060	0.1654	-0.510	6.311	0.7838	34.1180	0.9962
[277.5,297.5]	[1.5, 3.5]	-3.5990	0.9874	0.1224	-0.427	6.297	39.0260	42.1780	0.9902
	[3, 5]	8.7039	0.9684	0.0888	-0.187	8.720	-5.8060	57.8090	0.9640
	[0, 2]	-7.9300	1.0271	0.1669	-0.475	6.330	-6.5300	48.8880	0.9963
	[1.5, 3.5]	-10.5700	1.0356	0.1321	-0.454	6.750	25.0360	71.4990	0.9886
[292.5,312.5]	[3, 5]	-18.0300	1.0608	0.0609	-0.216	7.790	27.3820	23.9460	0.9827
	[4.5, 7.8]	-16.3900	1.0495	0.0910	-0.124	10.370	-0.4164	13.5050	0.9825
	[0, 2]	-14.3500	1.0483	0.1724	-0.449	6.773	-18.5620	53.9460	0.9975
	[1.5, 3.5]	-18.4700	1.0609	0.1395	-0.517	7.356	15.8020	81.9590	0.9920
≥307.5	[3, 5]	-15.3600	1.0496	0.0988	-0.310	8.628	13.8010	5.5932	0.9834
	[4.5, 7.8]	8.1984	1.0120	0.3076	-0.197	12.490	-40.2790	-7.1110	0.9804

Table 4. Error of inversion results before and after correction at different observation zenith angles

View table

Table 4. Error of inversion results before and after correction at different observation zenith angles

Observationzenith angle /(°)	OriginalRMSE /K	CorrectedRMSE /K	RMSEreduction /%
10	0.1935	0.1912	1.19
20	0.2275	0.2231	1.93
30	0.2960	0.2754	6.96
40	0.4530	0.3670	18.98
50	0.8177	0.5626	31.20
60	1.7932	1.1580	35.42
70	4.7247	3.3457	29.19

Table 5. Influence of TPW uncertainty on LST inversion
View table
Table 5. Influence of TPW uncertainty on LST inversion
TPW /cm [0,2] [1.5,3.5] [3,5] [4.5,7.8]
[0,2] 0.2026 0.4325 - -
[1.5,3.5] 0.3716 0.3525 0.6024 -
[3,5] - 0.5268 0.4095 0.5967
[4.5,7.8] - - 0.5872 0.4859

Table 6. Total error of LST inversion caused by coexistence of different emissivity errors and NETD when spectral response drift is ±3 nm
View table
Table 6. Total error of LST inversion caused by coexistence of different emissivity errors and NETD when spectral response drift is ±3 nm
NETD /K δε=0.5% δε=1.0% δε=1.5%
0.1 0.5794 0.8064 1.3362
0.2 0.7380 1.0103 1.4045
0.3 0.9681 1.3879 1.8663
0.4 1.5071 1.7105 2.2243

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Song Ye, Qi Xiahou, Jun Wu, Wei Xiong, Fangxiao Cui, Dacheng Li. Simulation of Land Surface Temperature Inversion for Stratospheric Sensor[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2022, 42(12): 1201001

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Atmospheric Optics and Oceanic Optics

Received: Aug. 23, 2021

Accepted: Nov. 4, 2021

Published Online: Jun. 7, 2022

The Author Email: Wu Jun (wujun@aiofm.ac.cn), Cui Fangxiao (fxcui@aiofm.ac.cn)

DOI:10.3788/AOS202242.1201001

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology

Table 1. Group intervals of LST and TPW

Table 1. Group intervals of LST and TPW

Table 2. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW sub-ranges

Table 2. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW sub-ranges

Table 3. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW and LST sub-ranges

Table 3. Linear fitting coefficients of split-window algorithm for different TPW and LST sub-ranges

Table 4. Error of inversion results before and after correction at different observation zenith angles

Table 4. Error of inversion results before and after correction at different observation zenith angles

Table 5. Influence of TPW uncertainty on LST inversion

Table 5. Influence of TPW uncertainty on LST inversion

Table 6. Total error of LST inversion caused by coexistence of different emissivity errors and NETD when spectral response drift is ±3 nm

Table 6. Total error of LST inversion caused by coexistence of different emissivity errors and NETD when spectral response drift is ±3 nm