Details
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | XXXI-XXXII |
Journal | Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres |
Volume | 107 |
Issue number | 16 |
Publication status | Published - 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;.
Keywords
- Satellite ultraviolet estimation, Ultraviolet radiation, Ultraviolet radiation measurements
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Geophysics
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Forestry
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Oceanography
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Aquatic Science
- Environmental Science(all)
- Ecology
- Environmental Science(all)
- Water Science and Technology
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Soil Science
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Geochemistry and Petrology
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Earth-Surface Processes
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Atmospheric Science
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Space and Planetary Science
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Palaeontology
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, Vol. 107, No. 16, 01.08.2002, p. XXXI-XXXII.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
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 -