The impact of VIIRS polarization sensitivity on ocean color

Kulkarny, V.; Hauss, B.; Jackson, John M.; Ip, J.; Pratt, Patty; Snodgrass, C.; Tsugawa, R.; Bendow, B.; Mineart, Gary M.

doi:10.1109/igarss.2010.5649719

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The radiometric requirements listed in Table 1 for both the RSB and TEB allocate 0.3% and 0.2% (except for band M14 at 0.6%) uncertainty respectively for the RVS characterization. The RVS change over the scan is not restricted in the requirements but must be characterized to within the allotted uncertainty (polarization effects are not included in the RVS and are separately characterized [9] for Environmental Data Record (EDR) processing [10]). The RVS is tested at system level and not at the HAM component level to allow the characterization with the on-orbit view geometry of the detector footprints on the HAM and RTA to be performed.…”

Section: Response Versus Scan Angle Test Source Assemblymentioning

confidence: 99%

JPSS-1 VIIRS Pre-Launch Response Versus Scan Angle Testing and Performance

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instruments on-board both the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (S-NPP) and the first Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS-1) spacecraft, with launch dates of October 2011 and December 2016 respectively, are cross-track scanners with an angular swath of˘56.06˝. A four-mirror Rotating Telescope Assembly (RTA) is used for scanning combined with a Half Angle Mirror (HAM) that directs light exiting from the RTA into the aft-optics. It has 14 Reflective Solar Bands (RSBs), seven Thermal Emissive Bands (TEBs) and a panchromatic Day Night Band (DNB). There are three internal calibration targets, the Solar Diffuser, the BlackBody and the Space View, that have fixed scan angles within the internal cavity of VIIRS. VIIRS has calibration requirements of 2% on RSB reflectance and as tight as 0.4% on TEB radiance that requires the sensor's gain change across the scan or Response Versus Scan angle (RVS) to be well quantified. A flow down of the top level calibration requirements put constraints on the characterization of the RVS to 0.2%-0.3% but there are no specified limitations on the magnitude of response change across scan. The RVS change across scan angle can vary significantly between bands with the RSBs having smaller changes of~2% and some TEBs having~10% variation. Within a band, the RVS has both detector and HAM side dependencies that vary across scan. Errors in the RVS characterization will contribute to image banding and striping artifacts if their magnitudes are above the noise level of the detectors. The RVS was characterized pre-launch for both S-NPP and JPSS-1 VIIRS and a comparison of the RVS curves between these two sensors will be discussed.

show abstract

Section: Response Versus Scan Angle Test Source Assemblymentioning

confidence: 99%

JPSS-1 VIIRS Pre-Launch Response Versus Scan Angle Testing and Performance

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Having assumed the imager's sensitivity m to be 0.03, as is the case for both MODIS (Sun and Xiong 2007) and VIIRS (Kulkarny et al 2010), the relative uncertainty on the imager reflectance d r 0 5 0:2% and using the dependence of the uncertainty of the degree of polarization on P derived from the PARASOL data, we examined how the relative intercalibrated uncertainty on the reflectance d RI depends on the wavelength, on the imager's uncertainty in sensitivity to polarization d m , and on the presence of aerosols. We found that at the CLARREO's target accuracy of 0.15%, d RI is insensitive to the choice of the wavelength as well as the differences in d m when the values were confined to 0% and 20%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The combined value of the three uncertainties is 0.2%. Next, we choose the value of m to be 0.03, which is roughly the sensitivity to polarization for both MODIS (Sun and Xiong 2007) and VIIRS (Kulkarny et al 2010). …”

Section: Estimating the Reflectance Uncertainty Due To Polarization Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Setting the sensitivity to polarization to 0.03, which is roughly equivalent to the MODIS (Sun and Xiong 2007) and VIIRS (Kulkarny et al 2010) values, and the error on the sensitivity d m to 10% and 20%. We found d RI to vary between 0.2% and 1%, increasing with the degree of polarization P. Not taking the error on sensitivity into account (d m 5 100%) results in up to 2.5% error on d RI .…”

Section: Estimating the Reflectance Uncertainty Due To Polarization Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PDMs derived from these channels will be used to validate the polarization modeling over the entire reflected solar spectrum using the adding-doubling radiative transfer model (ADRTM) . We note that such PDMs would provide the complete set of polarization parameters to the low-Earth-orbiting (LEO) imagers, such as MODIS and VIIRS, and geosynchronous (GEO) instruments, such as GOES, which can subsequently be used to correct for the polarization biases (see, e.g., Lyapustin et al 2014;Kulkarny et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Empirical Polarization Distribution Models for CLARREO-Imager Intercalibration

Lukashin

2016

Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polarization effects bias the performance of various existing passive spaceborne instruments, such as MODIS and the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), as well as geostationary imagers. It is essential to evaluate and correct for these effects in order to achieve the required accuracy of the total reflectance at the top of the atmosphere.In addition to performing highly accurate decadal climate change observations, one of the objectives of the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) mission recommended by the National Research Council for launch by NASA is to provide the on-orbit intercalibration with the imagers over a range of parameters, including polarization. Whenever the on-orbit coincident measurements are not possible, CLARREO will provide the polarization distributions constructed using the adding-doubling radiative transfer model (ADRTM), which will cover the entire reflected solar spectrum. These ADRTM results need to be validated using real data. To this end the empirical polarization distribution models (PDMs) based on the measurements taken by the Polarization and Anisotropy of Reflectances for Atmospheric Sciences Coupled with Observations from a Lidar (PARASOL) mission were developed. Examples of such PDMs for the degree of polarization and the angle of linear polarization for the cloudless ocean scenes are shown here. These PDMs are compared across the three available PARASOL polarization bands, and the effect of aerosols on them is examined. The PDM-derived dependence of the reflectance uncertainty on the degree of polarization for imagers, such as MODIS or VIIRS, after their intercalibration with the CLARREO instrument is evaluated. The influence of the aerosols on the reflectance uncertainty is examined. Finally, the PDMs for the angle of linear polarization is cross-checked against the single-scattering approximation.

show abstract