SMOS Quality Working Group Meeting #2 Frascati (Rome), September 13 th -14 th ,2010

1. SMOS Quality Working GroupMeeting #2Frascati (Rome), September 13th-14th,2010 SMOS-BEC Team

2. Outline • METHODOLOGY • TESTS • 1. RETRIEVAL MODE • Dual from Full vs. Stokes from Full • 2. BIAS MITIGATION • No correction vs. External Bias Temperature Calibration vs. OTT • 3. MODELS • Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) • 4. SSS SELECTION • All overpasses vs. Ascending vs. Descending • 5. TB SELECTION • EAF vs. AF • 6. NEW FTR • July vs. August • CONCLUSIONS (+ or -)

3. Methodology All the results presented are at Level 3 (10-day 2-degree product). Retrievals have been performed using SMOS-OS Level2 Processor. Level 2 data have been filtered according to: Fg_ctrl_reach_maxiter1,2,3: Maximum number of iteration reached before convergence. Fg_ctrl_marq1,2,3: Iterative loop ends because Marquardt increment is greater than lambdaMax (100). Statistical characterization is done considering only points more than 200 km from the coast Fg_sc_land_sea_coast1 = 1 & Fg_sc_land_sea_coast2 = 0

4. Methodology L2 L3 averaging has been performed according to: The L3 accuracy is also introduced to someway estimate the quality of the measurement

5. Tests 1.RETRIEVAL MODE 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed Model 2 in the mode “Stokes from Full-Pol” has been used OTT has been applied in accordance to the official DPGS product L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

6. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps - Dual Cold waters Amazon plume

7. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps - Stokes’ I Cold waters Amazon plume

8. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps

9. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 maps - Accuracy 2.5 psu

10. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 statistics - Dual rms rms 0.2260 2.2565 2.2678 0.2958 1.4391 1.4692 0.5559 1.4457 1.5489 0.5278 0.5805 0.7846

11. Tests – Dual vs. Stokes’ I L3 statistics – Stokes’ I rms rms +4% 0.2445 2.3505 2.3631 +14% 0.2935 1.6756 1.7011 0.6157 1.5464 1.6645 +7% 0.6080 0.5932 0.8495 +8%

12. Tests 2.BIAS MITIGATION 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” has been used No correction, external brightness temperature calibration[*], and OTT have been applied L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

13. Tests – Bias mitigation External Brightness Temperature Calibration Constant within the snapshot (xi, eta) but varying in time Ocean Target Transformation Constant in time but varying within the same snapshot

14. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – No bias mitigation

15. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – External Brightness Temperature Calibration

16. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – External Brightness Temperature Calibration MEAN BIAS SUBTRACTED Less intense land-sea transition effect

17. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps – Ocean Target Transformation

18. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 maps - Accuracy 2.5 psu

19. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 statistics – no bias mitigation rms rms 3.9591 2.6742 4.7776 4.1488 1.8571 4.5455 3.3468 3.7604 5.8288 3.5769 0.6343 3.6327

20. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 statistics – External Brightness Temperature Calibration rms rms -14% -20% 2.9600 2.3886 3.8036 3.1541 1.7764 3.6199 2.1981 1.7300 2.7972 -52% 2.2214 0.5801 2.2959 -37%

21. Tests – Bias mitigation L3 statistics – Ocean Target Transformation rms rms -52% -68% 0.2260 2.2565 2.2678 0.2958 1.4391 1.4692 0.5559 1.4457 1.5489 -73% 0.5278 0.5805 0.7846 -78%

22. Tests 3.MODELS 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product Model 2 and Model 3(16) are compared L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

23. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps – Model 2

24. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps – Model 3(16)

25. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps

26. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) SST L3 maps

27. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) WS L3 maps FROM ASCAT

28. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) Scatterplot

29. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 maps - Accuracy 2.5 psu

30. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 statistics – Model 2 rms rms 0.2445 2.3505 2.3631 0.2935 1.6756 1.7011 0.6157 1.5464 1.6645 0.6080 0.5932 0.8495

31. Tests – Model 2 vs. Model 3(16) L3 statistics – Model 3(16) rms rms +13% +21% 0.8302 2.5735 2.7041 0.9346 1.9486 2.1611 0.8490 1.7188 1.9171 +13% 0.9522 0.6619 1.1597 +27%

32. Tests 4.SSS SELECTION 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th ISEA4H9 ISEA4H8 to reduce the computational resources needed OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product L3 averaging has been performed using ALL the overpasses, only the ASCENDING ones, and only the DESCENDING ones L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

33. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps - All

34. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps - Ascending Fresher when ice/land enters in the FOV Saltier when it exits

35. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps - Descending Generally saltier Saltier when it exits Fresher when ice/land enters in the FOV

36. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 maps – comparisons with Ext TB cal

37. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending land-sea contamination a previous study

38. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 statistics - All ALL PASSES ALL PASSES rms rms 0.2260 2.2565 2.2678 0.2958 1.4391 1.4692 0.5559 1.4457 1.5489 0.5278 0.5805 0.7846

39. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 statistics - Ascending rms rms +32% +52% -0.0214 3.3183 3.3183 -0.3585 3.0150 3.0362 0.2175 1.5405 1.5557 = 0.1239 0.8506 0.8595 +9%

40. Tests – All vs. Ascending vs. Descending L3 statistics - Descending rms rms +24% +27% 0.3851 2.9766 3.0014 0.7824 1.8510 2.0096 0.9942 1.7178 1.9848 +22% 1.0820 0.9610 1.4472 +46%

41. Tests 5.TB SELECTION 5 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 14th ISEA4H9 has been used Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” is analized OTT has been applied as for the official DPGS product TB with a have been filtered out to almost reproduce the AF-FOV L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

42. Tests – EAF vs. AF AF-FOV approx.

43. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 maps - EAF

44. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 maps - AF

45. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 maps – AF minus EAF Descending negative Ascending positive

46. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 statistics - EAF rms rms -0.1680 2.7191 2.7242 0.0068 1.8762 1.8762 0.4170 1.1453 1.2189 0.3608 0.6828 0.7722

47. Tests – EAF vs. AF L3 statistics – AF rms rms +3% +5% -0.0867 2.8017 2.8030 0.0674 1.9639 1.9650 0.5254 1.2677 1.3722 +11% 0.4797 0.7427 0.8841 +13%

48. Tests 6.NEW FTR 10 days of retrieval from July, 10th to 19th and August, 20th to 29th are compared as produced by the DPGS: ISEA4H9 has been used Model 2 in the mode “Dual from Full-Pol” is analyzed OTT has been applied L3 retrieved SSS is compared to NOAA WOA05 climatology and ARGO averaged data

49. Tests – July vs. August L3 maps - July

50. Tests – July vs. August L3 maps - August Generally fresher