Assessment of four methods to estimate surface UV radiation using satellite data, by comparison with ground measurements from four stations in Europe

Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review

Autoren

  • Antti Arola
  • S. Kalliskota
  • P. N. Den Outer
  • K. Edvardsen
  • G. Hansen
  • T. Koskela
  • T. J. Martin
  • J. Matthijsen
  • R. Meerkoetter
  • P. Peeters
  • G. Seckmeyer
  • P. C. Simon
  • H. Slaper
  • P. Taalas
  • J. Verdebout

Organisationseinheiten

Externe Organisationen

  • Finnish Meteorological Institute
  • National Institute of Public Health and the Environment
  • Norwegian Institute for Air Research
  • Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)
  • Universität Graz
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR)
  • Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy
  • Gemeinsame Forschungsstelle (GFS)
Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)XXXI-XXXII
FachzeitschriftJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
Jahrgang107
Ausgabenummer16
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 1 Aug. 2002

Abstract

[1] Four different satellite-UV mapping methods are assessed by comparing them against ground-based measurements. The study includes most of the variability found in geographical, meteorological and atmospheric conditions. Three of the methods did not show any significant systematic bias, except during snow cover. The mean difference (bias) in daily doses for the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) and Joint Research Centre (JRC) methods was found to be less than 10% with a RMS difference of the order of 30%. The Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) method was assessed for a few selected months, and the accuracy was similar to the RIVM and JRC methods. It was additionally used to demonstrate how spatial averaging of high-resolution cloud data improves the estimation of UV daily doses. For the Institut d'Aéronomie Spatiale de Belgique (IASB) method the differences were somewhat higher, because of their original cloud algorithm. The mean difference in daily doses for IASB was about 30% or more, depending on the station, while the RMS difference was about 60%. The cloud algorithm of IASB has been replaced recently, and as a result the accuracy of the IASB method has improved. Evidence is found that further research and development should focus on the improvement of the cloud parameterization. Estimation of daily exposures is likely to be improved if additional time-resolved cloudiness information is available for the satellite-based methods. It is also demonstrated that further development work should be carried out on the treatment of albedo of snow-covered surfaces. INDEX TERMS: 3360 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Radiative processes; 3367 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Theoretical modeling;.

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Zitieren

Assessment of four methods to estimate surface UV radiation using satellite data, by comparison with ground measurements from four stations in Europe. / Arola, Antti; Kalliskota, S.; Den Outer, P. N. et al.
in: Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, Jahrgang 107, Nr. 16, 01.08.2002, S. XXXI-XXXII.

Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review

Arola, A, Kalliskota, S, Den Outer, PN, Edvardsen, K, Hansen, G, Koskela, T, Martin, TJ, Matthijsen, J, Meerkoetter, R, Peeters, P, Seckmeyer, G, Simon, PC, Slaper, H, Taalas, P & Verdebout, J 2002, 'Assessment of four methods to estimate surface UV radiation using satellite data, by comparison with ground measurements from four stations in Europe', Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, Jg. 107, Nr. 16, S. XXXI-XXXII. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000462
Arola, A., Kalliskota, S., Den Outer, P. N., Edvardsen, K., Hansen, G., Koskela, T., Martin, T. J., Matthijsen, J., Meerkoetter, R., Peeters, P., Seckmeyer, G., Simon, P. C., Slaper, H., Taalas, P., & Verdebout, J. (2002). Assessment of four methods to estimate surface UV radiation using satellite data, by comparison with ground measurements from four stations in Europe. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 107(16), XXXI-XXXII. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000462
Arola A, Kalliskota S, Den Outer PN, Edvardsen K, Hansen G, Koskela T et al. Assessment of four methods to estimate surface UV radiation using satellite data, by comparison with ground measurements from four stations in Europe. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 2002 Aug 1;107(16):XXXI-XXXII. doi: 10.1029/2001JD000462
Download
@article{016edb18683e4c3fa780a4ae919a8dfb,
title = "Assessment of four methods to estimate surface UV radiation using satellite data, by comparison with ground measurements from four stations in Europe",
abstract = "[1] Four different satellite-UV mapping methods are assessed by comparing them against ground-based measurements. The study includes most of the variability found in geographical, meteorological and atmospheric conditions. Three of the methods did not show any significant systematic bias, except during snow cover. The mean difference (bias) in daily doses for the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) and Joint Research Centre (JRC) methods was found to be less than 10% with a RMS difference of the order of 30%. The Deutsches Zentrum f{\"u}r Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) method was assessed for a few selected months, and the accuracy was similar to the RIVM and JRC methods. It was additionally used to demonstrate how spatial averaging of high-resolution cloud data improves the estimation of UV daily doses. For the Institut d'A{\'e}ronomie Spatiale de Belgique (IASB) method the differences were somewhat higher, because of their original cloud algorithm. The mean difference in daily doses for IASB was about 30% or more, depending on the station, while the RMS difference was about 60%. The cloud algorithm of IASB has been replaced recently, and as a result the accuracy of the IASB method has improved. Evidence is found that further research and development should focus on the improvement of the cloud parameterization. Estimation of daily exposures is likely to be improved if additional time-resolved cloudiness information is available for the satellite-based methods. It is also demonstrated that further development work should be carried out on the treatment of albedo of snow-covered surfaces. INDEX TERMS: 3360 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Radiative processes; 3367 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Theoretical modeling;.",
keywords = "Satellite ultraviolet estimation, Ultraviolet radiation, Ultraviolet radiation measurements",
author = "Antti Arola and S. Kalliskota and {Den Outer}, {P. N.} and K. Edvardsen and G. Hansen and T. Koskela and Martin, {T. J.} and J. Matthijsen and R. Meerkoetter and P. Peeters and G. Seckmeyer and Simon, {P. C.} and H. Slaper and P. Taalas and J. Verdebout",
note = "Copyright: Copyright 2015 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2002",
month = aug,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1029/2001JD000462",
language = "English",
volume = "107",
pages = "XXXI--XXXII",
journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres",
issn = "0148-0227",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "16",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of four methods to estimate surface UV radiation using satellite data, by comparison with ground measurements from four stations in Europe

AU - Arola, Antti

AU - Kalliskota, S.

AU - Den Outer, P. N.

AU - Edvardsen, K.

AU - Hansen, G.

AU - Koskela, T.

AU - Martin, T. J.

AU - Matthijsen, J.

AU - Meerkoetter, R.

AU - Peeters, P.

AU - Seckmeyer, G.

AU - Simon, P. C.

AU - Slaper, H.

AU - Taalas, P.

AU - Verdebout, J.

N1 - Copyright: Copyright 2015 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2002/8/1

Y1 - 2002/8/1

N2 - [1] Four different satellite-UV mapping methods are assessed by comparing them against ground-based measurements. The study includes most of the variability found in geographical, meteorological and atmospheric conditions. Three of the methods did not show any significant systematic bias, except during snow cover. The mean difference (bias) in daily doses for the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) and Joint Research Centre (JRC) methods was found to be less than 10% with a RMS difference of the order of 30%. The Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) method was assessed for a few selected months, and the accuracy was similar to the RIVM and JRC methods. It was additionally used to demonstrate how spatial averaging of high-resolution cloud data improves the estimation of UV daily doses. For the Institut d'Aéronomie Spatiale de Belgique (IASB) method the differences were somewhat higher, because of their original cloud algorithm. The mean difference in daily doses for IASB was about 30% or more, depending on the station, while the RMS difference was about 60%. The cloud algorithm of IASB has been replaced recently, and as a result the accuracy of the IASB method has improved. Evidence is found that further research and development should focus on the improvement of the cloud parameterization. Estimation of daily exposures is likely to be improved if additional time-resolved cloudiness information is available for the satellite-based methods. It is also demonstrated that further development work should be carried out on the treatment of albedo of snow-covered surfaces. INDEX TERMS: 3360 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Radiative processes; 3367 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Theoretical modeling;.

AB - [1] Four different satellite-UV mapping methods are assessed by comparing them against ground-based measurements. The study includes most of the variability found in geographical, meteorological and atmospheric conditions. Three of the methods did not show any significant systematic bias, except during snow cover. The mean difference (bias) in daily doses for the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) and Joint Research Centre (JRC) methods was found to be less than 10% with a RMS difference of the order of 30%. The Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) method was assessed for a few selected months, and the accuracy was similar to the RIVM and JRC methods. It was additionally used to demonstrate how spatial averaging of high-resolution cloud data improves the estimation of UV daily doses. For the Institut d'Aéronomie Spatiale de Belgique (IASB) method the differences were somewhat higher, because of their original cloud algorithm. The mean difference in daily doses for IASB was about 30% or more, depending on the station, while the RMS difference was about 60%. The cloud algorithm of IASB has been replaced recently, and as a result the accuracy of the IASB method has improved. Evidence is found that further research and development should focus on the improvement of the cloud parameterization. Estimation of daily exposures is likely to be improved if additional time-resolved cloudiness information is available for the satellite-based methods. It is also demonstrated that further development work should be carried out on the treatment of albedo of snow-covered surfaces. INDEX TERMS: 3360 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Radiative processes; 3367 Meteorology and Atmospheric Dynamics: Theoretical modeling;.

KW - Satellite ultraviolet estimation

KW - Ultraviolet radiation

KW - Ultraviolet radiation measurements

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36448956088&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1029/2001JD000462

DO - 10.1029/2001JD000462

M3 - Article

VL - 107

SP - XXXI-XXXII

JO - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres

JF - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres

SN - 0148-0227

IS - 16

ER -