2008
DOI: 10.1109/tgrs.2007.905197
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermal Land Surface Emissivity Retrieved From SEVIRI/Meteosat

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
80
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 112 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
80
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Deserts are characterised by a lower emissivity at 8.7 µm than at 10.8 or 12.0 µm (e.g. Hulley et al, 2015;De Paepe and Dewitte, 2009;Trigo et al, 2008). It is possible that this induces larger IOT CiPS /IWP CiPS retrieval errors because the ANN cannot localise desert regions unambiguously using only latitude and viewing zenith angle.…”
Section: Cirrus Cloud Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Deserts are characterised by a lower emissivity at 8.7 µm than at 10.8 or 12.0 µm (e.g. Hulley et al, 2015;De Paepe and Dewitte, 2009;Trigo et al, 2008). It is possible that this induces larger IOT CiPS /IWP CiPS retrieval errors because the ANN cannot localise desert regions unambiguously using only latitude and viewing zenith angle.…”
Section: Cirrus Cloud Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[50] As in Freitas et al [2010], the radiometric error (sensor noise) of the observed brightness temperatures was assigned values of 0.11 K and 0.15 K for the 10.8 mm and 12.0 mm channels, respectively, yielding an uncertainty on the spectral temperature difference DT of 0.186 K. The resulting uncertainty on the surface temperature retrieval is dT s (T 10.8 ) = 0.11 K and dT s (DT) = 0.34 K. The uncertainty of the mean spectral emissivity ɛ was assigned a value of 0.018, and that on the spectral emissivity difference Dɛ a value of 0.0045, as in Trigo et al [2008], resulting in dT s (ɛ) = 0.80 K and dT s (Dɛ) = 0.36 K. Freitas et al [2010] cite comparable figures for the uncertainty on these quantities over urban areas for the thermal bands of SEVIRI. Also Wan [2008] assigns very similar uncertainties for the MODIS thermal channels at wavelengths comparable with those of SEVIRI's.…”
Section: Appendix A: the Split-window Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to less sensitivity to the uncertainties in the LSEs and the atmospheric conditions, the GSW algorithm has been applied widely to various new generation satellite data to retrieve LST and obtained reliable results [25][26][27][28][29][30]32]. Wan [21] proposed a refined GSW algorithm to improve the LST accuracy and it is directly applied to the FY-3B/VIRR data to retrieve LST in this paper.…”
Section: The Gsw Algorithm For Fy-3b/virrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The split-window (SW) algorithm is a multi-channel method and is based on the fact that the difference of the atmospheric water vapor absorptions at selected longwave infrared channels is proportional to the difference in the brightness temperature (BT) at two channels [17]. Due to its simplicity and robustness, the SW algorithm has been applied widely to various satellite data, such as the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) [18][19][20], Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) [14,21,22], LandSat-8 [23,24], FengYun polar-orbiting meteorological satellite (VIRR/FY-3A) data [25][26][27], Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) [28][29][30], Advanced Along-Track Scanning Radiometer (AATSR) [31], Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) [32], FengYun geostationary meteorological satellite (FY-2C) [33], and others.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%