(9) How do the algorithms perform globally, processed from satellite Level-2 Rrs(λ)?
(10) How do the algorithms perform globally, processed from satellite Level-3 Rrs(λ)?
The NASA OBPG traditionally produces derived products such as IOPs by processing Level-2 (per satellite observation) remote sensing reflectance retrievals (Rrs) through an algorithm (e.g., IOP inversion model) to produce Level-2 derived products. These Level-2 products are than spatially and temporally binned and averaged to produce global Level-3 composites. An alternative approach to producing global composites of derived products is to start from Level-3 composites of normalized water-leaving radiances or Rrs and generate global derived products using these mean Rrs values as input to the product algorithm. i.e., the two methods of producing Level-3 global composites are:
1) [L1 observed radiances]->l2gen->[L2 IOPs]->l2bin->l3bin->[L3 IOPs]
2) [L1 observed radiances]->l2gen->[L2 Rrss]->l2bin->l3bin->[L3 RRss]->l3gen->[L3 IOPs]
The 2nd approach requires less computational resources and is therefore often used in research and application development activities external to NASA/OBPG, when non-standard product algorithms are to be evaluated or applied on global scales. Here we simply wish to assess any differences between these two binning strategies. To that end, the standard NASA Level-1 to Level-2 code (l2gen, a.k.a. msl12) was modified to read Level-3 binned products of nLw or Rrs and associated mean solar and path geometry and output derived products in the same Level-3 binned format. This new code, l3gen, shares all algorithm implementation and capabilities with l2gen, so any potential differences in algorithm application are minimized.
For each model/method, global SeaWiFS data was processed to 9.2-km monthly means for March, June, September, and December of 2005, and common bins were evaluated over several water classification subsets. i.e.:
QAA
In contrast, QAA shows largest differences in eutrophic absorption, with binning strategy 2 producing a higher
peak with similar mode.
PML
The PML model shows small differences in all water class subsets, for both a and bb, with larger differences in eutrophic waters. This is likely a result of using mean radiant path geometry to derive the bidirectional corrections (Fresnel relfection/refraction, f/Q) to the mean Rrs, rather than correcting Rrs and Level-2 using the true radiant path geometry.
Summary
More analysis needs to be done to assess whether these differences are significant, but they are
certainly less significant than the differences between models, as can be seen in the table below.
This would suggest the binning
strategy is not a primary concern at this time, and that we can evaluate the performance of IOP models
and inversion
methods on global Level-3 composites with relative confidence using either binning approach.
| March 2005 | GSM | QAA | PML |
| a_443 |  |
 |
 |
| bb_443 |  |
 |
 |
| Curator: OceanColor Webmaster
Authorized by: gene carl feldman |
Privacy Policy and Important Notices
Updated: Friday, 14-Nov-2008 09:21:00 EST |
|
