2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncertainties of SeaWiFS and MODIS remote sensing reflectance: Implications from clear water measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
123
2
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

6
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(130 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
4
123
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We have shown that over the full range of in situ Chla, all satellite sensors estimate Chla reasonably well with median absolute percent errors below 30% and R 2 of about 0.8 or higher, which is consistent with other studies (e.g., [20]) and meets the original goal of 35% accuracy [21] set for SeaWiFS for retrieving ocean Chla in Case 1 waters. However, at medium and high Chla, the accuracy drops dramatically and in different ways for the different sensors.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…We have shown that over the full range of in situ Chla, all satellite sensors estimate Chla reasonably well with median absolute percent errors below 30% and R 2 of about 0.8 or higher, which is consistent with other studies (e.g., [20]) and meets the original goal of 35% accuracy [21] set for SeaWiFS for retrieving ocean Chla in Case 1 waters. However, at medium and high Chla, the accuracy drops dramatically and in different ways for the different sensors.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…This confirms the validity of previous results based on the assumption that the atmospheric correction process does not significantly affect the noise-related error on chl-a. In opposition to previous studies which focus on ocean colour sensors (Jolivet et al 2007;Hu, Feng, and Lee 2013), we demonstrated that noise-related uncertainty derived from atmospheric correction is less important than the direct effect of noise associated to TOA measurements in the visible range. This FCI specificity can be explained by the application of a dedicated atmospheric correction algorithm and by the radiometric performance of the FCI sensor which is far from that of typical ocean colour sensors.…”
Section: Impact Of Atmospheric Correction On Chl-a Final Errorcontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Some manual elimination of false positives was also needed for SeaWiFS data, particularly along cloud edges. SeaWiFS data have lower signal-to-noise ratio than MODIS data and therefore higher levels of noise variance (Hu et al, 2013). Some areas, e.g., the Bay of Gdansk and the Gulf of Riga, are often turbid (e.g., Liblik and Lips, 2011) and the detection of cyanobacteria accumulations there is sometimes ambiguous.…”
Section: Ocean Color Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%