| Literature DB >> 29382089 |
Yuanyuan Hu1, Lei Zhong2, Yaoming Ma3,4,5, Mijun Zou6, Kepiao Xu7, Ziyu Huang8, Lu Feng9.
Abstract
During the process of land-atmosphere interaction, one of the essential parameters is the land surface temperature (LST). The LST has high temporal variability, especially in its diurnal cycle, which cannot be acquired by polar-orbiting satellites. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to retrieve LST data using geostationary satellites. According to the data of FengYun 2C (FY-2C) satellite and the measurements from the Enhanced Observing Period (CEOP) of the Asia-Australia Monsoon Project (CAMP) on the Tibetan Plateau (CAMP/Tibet), a regression approach was utilized in this research to optimize the split window algorithm (SWA). The thermal infrared data obtained by the Chinese geostationary satellite FY-2C over the Tibetan Plateau (TP) was used to estimate the hourly LST time series. To decrease the effects of cloud, the 10-day composite hourly LST data were obtained through the approach of maximal value composite (MVC). The derived LST was used to compare with the product of MODIS LST and was also validated by the field observation. The results show that the LST retrieved through the optimized SWA and in situ data has a better consistency (with correlation coefficient (R), mean absolute error (MAE), mean bias (MB), and root mean square error (RMSE) values of 0.987, 1.91 K, 0.83 K and 2.26 K, respectively) than that derived from Becker and Li's SWA and MODIS LST product, which means that the modified SWA can be applied to achieve plateau-scale LST. The diurnal variation of the LST and the hourly time series of the LST over the Tibetan Plateau were also obtained. The diurnal range of LST was found to be clearly affected by the influence of the thawing and freezing process of soil and the summer monsoon evolution. The comparison between the seasonal and diurnal variations of LST at four typical underlying surfaces over the TP indicate that the variation of LST is closely connected with the underlying surface types as well. The diurnal variation of LST is the smallest at the water (5.12 K), second at the snow and ice (5.45 K), third at the grasslands (19.82 K) and largest at the barren or sparsely vegetated (22.83 K).Entities:
Keywords: FengYun 2C; land surface temperature; split window algorithm; the Tibetan Plateau
Year: 2018 PMID: 29382089 PMCID: PMC5854969 DOI: 10.3390/s18020376
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
The specifications of FY-2C/SVISSR channels.
| Channel No. | Channel Name | Spectral Range ( | Spatial Resolution ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FIR1 | 10.3–11.3 | 5 |
| 2 | FIR2 | 11.5–12.5 | 5 |
| 3 | FIR1 | 6.3–7.6 | 5 |
| 4 | MIR | 3.5–4.0 | 5 |
| 5 | VIS | 0.55–0.90 | 1.25 |
Ground observation stations.
| Sites | Longitude (°E) | Latitude (°N) | Altitude (m) | Land Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✰ BJ | 91.89871 | 31.36859 | 4509.0 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ✰ D66 | 93.78454 | 35.52353 | 4585.0 | alpine and subalpine plain grass |
| ✰ D105 | 91.94256 | 33.06429 | 5039.0 | alpine and subalpine plain grass |
| ✪ Linzhi | 94.73840 | 29.76450 | 3326.0 | needle-leaved evergreen forest |
| ✰ Nam Co | 90.98850 | 30.77500 | 4730.0 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ✰ QOMS | 86.94640 | 28.35810 | 4276.0 | alpine and subalpine plain grass |
| ✰ MS3478 | 91.71600 | 31.92600 | 4620.0 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ✰ MS3608 | 91.78328 | 31.22623 | 4588.9 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ◯ GAIZ | 84.06221 | 32.30626 | 4394.3 | alpine and subalpine plain grass |
| ◯ GANZ | 99.99755 | 31.61966 | 3357.8 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ◯ LITA | 100.27077 | 29.99468 | 3925.2 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ◯ LNGZ | 92.46006 | 28.41416 | 3824.4 | alpine and sulpine meadow |
| ◯ NAQU | 92.06118 | 31.47977 | 4477.8 | alpine and subalpine plain grass |
| ◯ RUOE | 102.96581 | 33.57598 | 3417.8 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ◯ SHEN | 88.70490 | 30.93161 | 4635.9 | alpine and subalpine plain grass |
| ◯ DEQN | 98.90737 | 28.48851 | 3295.0 | needle-leaved evergreen forest |
| ◯ DING | 95.59356 | 31.41513 | 3843.0 | alpine and subalpine meadow |
| ◯ DINR | 87.12039 | 28.65461 | 4326.6 | alpine and subalpine plain grass |
| ✰ RanwuM | 96.7711 | 29.4811 | 3928.0 | water |
| ✰ RanwuD | 96.6477 | 96.6477 | 3923.0 | water |
✰ Meteorological stations, ◯ GPS stations, ✪ Meteorological stations and GPS stations.
Figure 1Location of the Tibetan Plateau. Circles of different colours represent the meteorological and GPS stations scattered in the Tibetan Plateau.
Figure 2Flowchart of the FY-2C LST retrieval approach.
Figure 3Comparison between the water vapor content from NCEP CFSR reanalysis (a); MERRA-2 reanalysis data (b) and GPS measurements at 11 stations.
The statistics of two reanalysis WVC data versus GPS measurements at 11 stations.
| Sites | NCEP CFSR | MERRA-2 | N | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE | MB | MAE | R | RMSE | MB | MAE | R | ||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| GAIZ | 0.224 | −0.074 | 0.171 | 0.901 | 0.230 | −0.104 | 0.176 | 0.906 | 1892 |
| GANZ | 0.445 | −0.336 | 0.362 | 0.925 | 0.455 | −0.354 | 0.371 | 0.931 | 2457 |
| LITA | 0.249 | −0.102 | 0.193 | 0.918 | 0.210 | −0.040 | 0.161 | 0.933 | 2512 |
| LNGZ | 0.351 | −0.235 | 0.271 | 0.927 | 0.263 | −0.117 | 0.200 | 0.919 | 1283 |
| NAQU | 0.200 | −0.051 | 0.150 | 0.915 | 0.182 | −0.037 | 0.135 | 0.928 | 2345 |
| RUOE | 0.249 | 0.031 | 0.189 | 0.891 | 0.285 | 0.046 | 0.206 | 0.872 | 2408 |
| SHEN | 0.279 | −0.167 | 0.221 | 0.795 | 0.218 | −0.051 | 0.173 | 0.821 | 1100 |
| DEQN | 0.280 | −0.122 | 0.218 | 0.931 | 0.346 | −0.241 | 0.278 | 0.930 | 1744 |
| DING | 0.212 | −0.122 | 0.143 | 0.136 | 0.331 | −0.183 | 0.186 | 0.146 | 38 |
| DINR | 0.301 | −0.182 | 0.235 | 0.906 | 0.249 | −0.131 | 0.187 | 0.915 | 1518 |
| Linzhi | 0.451 | −0.364 | 0.376 | 0.955 | 0.545 | −0.473 | 0.477 | 0.951 | 1675 |
| 0.295 | −0.157 | 0.230 | 0.836 | 0.301 | −0.153 | 0.232 | 0.841 | ||
FY-2C cloud classification data contents.
| Data | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | Clear Oceans |
| 1 | Clear Lands |
| 11 | Mixed Pixels |
| 12 | Altostratus or Nimbostratus |
| 13 | Cirrostratus |
| 14 | Cirrus Dens |
| 15 | Cumulonimbus |
| 21 | Stratocumulus or Altocumulus |
Split window algorithm coefficients (–) in Equation (5).
| Month | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Water | |
| 20.76 | −18.50 | 7.230 | 1.703 | −19.70 | 28.28 | 48.61 | 183.33 | 37.73 | 76.23 | −9.66 | 13.38 | 264.0 | |
| 161.0 | 110.4 | 13.24 | −3.36 | 22.86 | 11.08 | 17.42 | 5.56 | 39.92 | −29.77 | 26.58 | 11.20 | 14.10 | |
| 0.83 | 1.03 | 0.93 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 0.86 | 0.73 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 1.03 | 0.95 | 0.005 | |
| 6.56 | 2.64 | 4.05 | 1.33 | 4.69 | 3.21 | 5.74 | 6.35 | 6.72 | −1.72 | −0.27 | −0.30 | 4.12 | |
| −39.49 | −24.08 | −0.40 | 4.39 | −3.24 | −0.54 | −2.33 | −0.37 | −8.47 | 10.37 | −1.72 | 2.47 | −3.87 | |
| 0.49 | 0.89 | −1.60 | −0.17 | −1.15 | 2.57 | 4.48 | 1.41 | −4.00 | 1.87 | 0.09 | 1.73 | 6.09 | |
| −3.94 | −4.93 | 1.74 | −0.52 | 2.80 | −1.77 | −2.38 | 2.26 | 6.25 | −0.93 | −4.06 | 1.50 | −4.19 | |
| −19.26 | 3.23 | −3.66 | 12.29 | 4.39 | −3.40 | −4.20 | 16.63 | 3.86 | 4.63 | −2.94 | −0.26 | 90.86 | |
| 144.19 | 75.65 | 24.08 | −0.50 | −18.24 | 7.98 | −1.08 | −23.19 | 14.73 | 6.88 | 60.95 | 92.00 | −67.35 | |
| 1408.72 | −57.91 | 737.08 | −184.39 | −192.27 | 527.82 | 143.06 | −684.25 | 97.52 | −173.52 | −198.25 | −162.64 | −5728.65 | |
| −8240.61 | −4513.60 | −1847.9 | −915.76 | 888.10 | −716.14 | 74.38 | 1242.25 | −1145.41 | −425.31 | −2382.34 | −3952.42 | 4281.47 | |
| −487.51 | 2.91 | −748.48 | −666.49 | −102.93 | 282.94 | 1306.60 | 491.06 | −810.21 | 103.19 | 167.09 | 12.23 | −4781.65 | |
| 1591.99 | −1634.86 | 26.93 | 1280.16 | 476.18 | −183.94 | −378.13 | −707.88 | 788.61 | −83.32 | −3452.47 | 730.95 | 3107.35 | |
Effects of WVC error on accuracy of retrieved LST.
| RMSE (K) | MB (K) | MAE (K) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.40 | 6.30 | 5.02 | 5.39 |
| 0.30 | 4.72 | 3.77 | 4.04 |
| 0.20 | 3.14 | 2.51 | 2.69 |
| 0.10 | 1.57 | 1.26 | 1.35 |
| −0.10 | 1.57 | −1.26 | 1.35 |
| −0.20 | 3.14 | −2.51 | 2.69 |
| −0.30 | 4.72 | −3.77 | 4.04 |
| −0.40 | 6.30 | −5.02 | 5.39 |
Figure 4Validation between the retrieved LST from BL95; (a) the improved SWA; (b) against the field measurements (one-year data).
Figure 5Spatio-temporal distribution of the retrieved LST from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. BST, 1 November 2008.
Figure 6Spatio-temporal distribution of the FY-2C LST and MODIS product.
Figure 7Comparison between derived MODIS LST product and FY-2C LST (one-year data). (a) the seasonal variations of the average LST derived from MODIS and FY-2C over the entire Tibetan Plateau; (b) the validation of the MODIS and FY-2C results against the in situ measurements.
Figure 8Spatio-temporal distributions of the monthly mean of the daily LST maximum in 2008.
Figure 9Spatio-temporal distributions of the monthly mean diurnal range of the LST in 2008.
Figure 10(a) the seasonal variations of the monthly average LST for these different land cover; (b) the diurnal variations of the LST of those different underlying surfaces; (c) the average LST of four different underlying surfaces in summer and winter; (d) the diurnal LST range of four different land cover types.