| Literature DB >> 22164030 |
Yung-Hsiang Lee1, Chung-Ru Ho, Feng-Chun Su, Nan-Jung Kuo, Yu-Hsin Cheng.
Abstract
An neural network model of data mining is used to identify error sources in satellite-derived tropical sea surface temperature (SST) estimates from thermal infrared sensors onboard the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES). By using the Back Propagation Network (BPN) algorithm, it is found that air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed variation are the major factors causing the errors of GOES SST products in the tropical Pacific. The accuracy of SST estimates is also improved by the model. The root mean square error (RMSE) for the daily SST estimate is reduced from 0.58 K to 0.38 K and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) is 1.03%. For the hourly mean SST estimate, its RMSE is also reduced from 0.66 K to 0.44 K and the MAPE is 1.3%.Entities:
Keywords: data mining; infrared sensor; neural network; sea surface temperature; tropical pacific
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22164030 PMCID: PMC3231724 DOI: 10.3390/s110807530
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.The red rectangle represents the study area from 8°S to 8°N in latitude and from 95°W to 170°W in longitude.
List of predictor variables.
| Air Temperature | Air Temperature | ||
| The satellite’s azimuth angle | The satellite’s azimuth angle | ||
| Relative humidity | Relative humidity | ||
| Standard deviation of relative humidity | Standard deviation of relative humidity | ||
| Wind speed | Wind speed | ||
| Standard deviation of wind speed | Standard deviation of wind speed | ||
| Wind direction | Wind direction | ||
| Net longwave radiation flux |
Number of data used for training and verification.
| Training | 12,074 | 138,028 |
| Verification | 5,229 | 108,426 |
| Total | 17,303 | 246,454 |
The number of original data and clean data.
| 35,102 | 17,303 | |
| 1,326,043 | 246,454 | |
Figure 2.The ANN model.
Figure 3.BPN training result by daily mean data (a, c), and by hourly mean data (b, d).
BPN weight table of daily mean data.
| F1 | 0.16[ | 0.20[ | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.27[ |
| F2 | 0.01 | 0.47[ | 0.01 | 0.14[ | 0.24[ | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| F3 | 0.01 | 0.10[ | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.57[ | 026[ | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| F4 | 0.04 | 0.38[ | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.18[ | 0.33[ | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| F5 | 0.03 | 0.50[ | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.19[ | 0.22[ | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| F6 | 0.15[ | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.18[ | 0.07 | 0.35[ | 0.10 | 0.06 |
| Sum | 0.39 | 1.70 | 0.11 | 0.49 | 1.35 | 1.26 | 0.31 | 0.39 |
| Order | 6 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 5 |
The top three variable weights in the network.
BPN weight table of hourly mean data.
| F1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.60 | 0.16 | 0.07 |
| F2 | 0.08 | 0.32 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.04 |
| F3 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.09 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.08 |
| F4 | 0.05 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.01 |
| F5 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.02 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.19 | 0.02 |
| F6 | 0.02 | 0.44 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.21 |
| Sum | 0.34 | 1.91 | 0.22 | 1.10 | 1.08 | 0.92 | 0.43 |
| Order | 6 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
The top three variable weights in the network.
Figure 4.Histogram of original SST and simulated SST. (a) Daily data of GOES SST vs. TAO SST; (b) Daily data of simulated SST vs. TAO SST; (c) Hourly data of GOES SST vs. TAO SST; (d) Hourly data of simulated SST vs. TAO SST.
Statistical results of model variables.
| Original model | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.97 | 0.97 |
| Without
| 1 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.81 |
| Without
| 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.97 | 0.96 |
| Without
| 1.08 | 1.04 | 0.73 | 0.79 |
| Without
| 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.97 | 0.96 |
| Without
| 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.98 | 0.96 |
| Without
| 1.13 | 0.71 | ||
| Without
| 1.31 | 0.53 |
Figure 5.Scatter-plot of daily verification data and hourly verification data with in situ measurements.