Validation of MODIS AOD retrievals in West Africa: a comparison with AERONET observations

Okpalaonwuka, Chinelo; Olusegun, Christiana; Olusola, Adeyemi; Ogunjo, Samuel

doi:10.1007/s11869-023-01391-4

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the current uneven distribution of AERONET sites, it is impossible to monitor on a large scale. And the diurnal variation in aerosols is large, and there will still be biased situations using aerosol daily average data [41]. Consequently, the overestimation of aerosol optical depth could cause the overestimation of simulated results and vice versa.…”

Section: Models Precision Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicability Analysis of Three Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Models in Nighttime

He,

Zhang,

Liu

et al. 2024

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relatively stable lunar illumination may be used to realize radiometric calibration under low light. However, there is still an insufficient understanding of the accuracy of models and the influence of parameters when conducting research on low-light radiometric calibration. Therefore, this study explores the applicability of three atmospheric radiative transfer models under different nighttime conditions. The simulation accuracies of three nighttime atmospheric radiative transfer models (Night-SCIATRAN, Night-MODTRAN, and Night-6SV) were evaluated using the visible-infrared imaging radiometer suite day/night band (VIIRS/DNB) data. The results indicate that Night-MODTRAN has the highest simulation accuracy under DNB. The consistency between simulated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiance and DNB radiance is approximately 3.1%, and uncertainty is 2.5%. This study used Night-MODTRAN for parameter sensitivity analysis. The results indicate that for the lunar phase angle, aerosol optical depth, surface reflectance, lunar zenith angle, satellite zenith angle, and relative azimuth angle, the average change rates are 68%, 100%, 2561%, 75%, 20%, and 0%. This paper can help better understand the performance of models under different atmospheric and geographical conditions, as well as whether existing models can simulate the complex processes of atmospheric radiation.

show abstract

Section: Models Precision Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%