Literature DB >> 30694252

Intercomparison of airborne multi-angle polarimeter observations from the Polarimeter Definition Experiment.

Kirk Knobelspiesse, Qian Tan, Carol Bruegge, Brian Cairns, Jacek Chowdhary, Bastiaan van Diedenhoven, David Diner, Richard Ferrare, Gerard van Harten, Veljko Jovanovic, Matteo Ottaviani, Jens Redemann, Felix Seidel, Kenneth Sinclair.   

Abstract

In early 2013, three airborne polarimeters were flown on the high altitude NASA ER-2 aircraft in California for the Polarimeter Definition Experiment (PODEX). PODEX supported the pre-formulation NASA Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem (ACE) mission, which calls for an imaging polarimeter in polar orbit (among other instruments) for the remote sensing of aerosols, oceans, and clouds. Several polarimeter concepts exist as airborne prototypes, some of which were deployed during PODEX as a capabilities test. Two of those instruments to date have successfully produced Level 1 (georegistered, calibrated radiance and polarization) data from that campaign: the Airborne Multiangle Spectropolarimetric Imager (AirMSPI) and the Research Scanning Polarimeter (RSP). We compared georegistered observations of a variety of scene types by these instruments to test whether Level 1 products agreed within stated uncertainties. Initial comparisons found radiometric agreement, but polarimetric biases beyond measurement uncertainties. After subsequent updates to calibration, georegistration, and the measurement uncertainty models, observations from the instruments now largely agree within stated uncertainties. However, the 470 nm reflectance channels have a roughly +6% bias of AirMSPI relative to RSP, beyond expected measurement uncertainties. We also find that observations of dark (ocean) scenes, where polarimetric uncertainty is expected to be largest, do not agree within stated polarimetric uncertainties. Otherwise, AirMSPI and RSP observations are consistent within measurement uncertainty expectations, providing credibility for the subsequent creation of Level 2 (geophysical product) data from these instruments, and comparison thereof. The techniques used in this work can also form a methodological basis for other intercomparisons, for example, of the data gathered during the recent Aerosol Characterization from Polarimeter and Lidar (ACEPOL) field campaign, carried out in October and November of 2017 with four polarimeters (including AirMSPI and RSP).

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30694252      PMCID: PMC6996873          DOI: 10.1364/AO.58.000650

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Opt        ISSN: 1559-128X            Impact factor:   1.980


  15 in total

Review 1.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Cloud physics lidar: instrument description and initial measurement results.

Authors:  Matthew McGill; Dennis Hlavka; William Hart; V Stanley Scott; James Spinhirne; Beat Schmid
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2002-06-20       Impact factor: 1.980

3.  Airborne high spectral resolution lidar for profiling aerosol optical properties.

Authors:  Johnathan W Hair; Chris A Hostetler; Anthony L Cook; David B Harper; Richard A Ferrare; Terry L Mack; Wayne Welch; Luis Ramos Isquierdo; Floyd E Hovis
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2008-12-20       Impact factor: 1.980

4.  Dual-photoelastic-modulator-based polarimetric imaging concept for aerosol remote sensing.

Authors:  David J Diner; Ab Davis; Bruce Hancock; Gary Gutt; Russell A Chipman; Brian Cairns
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2007-12-10       Impact factor: 1.980

5.  Calibration and validation of Airborne Multiangle SpectroPolarimetric Imager (AirMSPI) polarization measurements.

Authors:  Gerard van Harten; David J Diner; Brian J S Daugherty; Brian E Rheingans; Michael A Bull; Felix C Seidel; Russell A Chipman; Brian Cairns; Andrzej P Wasilewski; Kirk D Knobelspiesse
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 1.980

6.  Passive remote sensing of aerosol layer height using near-UV multi-angle polarization measurements.

Authors:  Lianghai Wu; Otto Hasekamp; Bastiaan van Diedenhoven; Brian Cairns; John E Yorks; Jacek Chowdhary
Journal:  Geophys Res Lett       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 4.720

7.  Analysis of fine-mode aerosol retrieval capabilities by different passive remote sensing instrument designs.

Authors:  Kirk Knobelspiesse; Brian Cairns; Michael Mishchenko; Jacek Chowdhary; Kostas Tsigaridis; Bastiaan van Diedenhoven; William Martin; Matteo Ottaviani; Mikhail Alexandrov
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  Vertical variation of ice particle size in convective cloud tops.

Authors:  Bastiaan van Diedenhoven; Ann M Fridlind; Brian Cairns; Andrew S Ackerman; John E Yorks
Journal:  Geophys Res Lett       Date:  2016-03-27       Impact factor: 4.720

9.  Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-10-21       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Simultaneous polarimeter retrievals of microphysical aerosol and ocean color parameters from the "MAPP" algorithm with comparison to high-spectral-resolution lidar aerosol and ocean products.

Authors:  S Stamnes; C Hostetler; R Ferrare; S Burton; X Liu; J Hair; Y Hu; A Wasilewski; W Martin; B van Diedenhoven; J Chowdhary; I Cetinić; L K Berg; K Stamnes; B Cairns
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 1.980

View more
  1 in total

1.  Development and Validation of an Empirical Ocean Color Algorithm with Uncertainties: A Case Study with the Particulate Backscattering Coefficient.

Authors:  Lachlan I W McKinna; Ivona Cetinić; P Jeremy Werdell
Journal:  J Geophys Res Oceans       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.405

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.