Search

After 2.5 years of the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission, the characterization of residual instrumental systematic errors in the measured brightness temperatures (TB) is still rather poor. This, in turn, negatively impacts the sea surface salinity retrievals and, as such, notably limits the mission's success. The error mitigation methodology currently used operationally, the so-called Ocean Target Transformation (OTT), mixes both instrumental and model-induced errors. In this paper, it is proposed to distinguish errors by their type of impact on the TB images: mean brightness level, incidence angle dependence, and azimuth angle dependence. A new approach to characterize the azimuth-dependent errors is proposed. First, a careful data selection strategy is applied. Then, an empirically fitted model, which only accounts for the TB incidence angle dependence, is subtracted from the mean TB images of the selected data sets to estimate the systematic antenna-frame errors. The robustness of this methodology is assessed through the estimated anomaly pattern stability when computed for different geophysical conditions, periods of time, and latitudinal bands. The residual variability ranges from 0.03 K to 0.14 K, whereas the OTT variability is about 0.5 K. The new method is forward model independent and generic. It can therefore be applied to estimate the antenna-frame systematic errors over land and ice. Moreover, it proves to be very effective in separating different sources of error and can therefore be used to further characterize other error components and improve the various SMOS forward model terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The local oscillators (LOs) of the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity mission payload are used to shift the operating frequency of the 72 receivers to an optimal intermediate frequency needed for the signal processing. The LO temperature variations produce phase errors in the visibility, which result in a blurring of the reconstructed brightness temperature (Tb) image. At the end of the commissioning phase, it was decided to calibrate the LO every 10 min while waiting for a more in-depth analysis. During short periods of time, the LO calibration has been performed every 2 min to assess the impact of a higher calibration rate on the quality of the data. In this paper, by means of a decimation experiment, the relative errors of 6- and 10-min calibration interval data sets are estimated using the 2 min as a reference. A noticeable systematic across- and along-track pattern of amplitude \pm0.3 K is observed for Tb differences between 10 and 2 min, whereas this is reduced between 6 and 2 min. A simulation experiment confirms that the nature of such systematic pattern is due to the visibility phase errors induced by the LO calibration rate. Such pattern is propagated into the sea surface salinity (SSS) retrievals. Overall, the SSS error increase (relative to the 2 min SSS data) is about 0.39 and 0.14 psu for the 10- and 6-min data sets, respectively. This paper shows that a LO calibration rate of at least 6 min would noticeably improve the SSS retrievals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A prerequisite for the successful retrieval of geophysical parameters from remote sensing measurements is the development of an accurate forward model. The European Space Agency Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS), carrying onboard an L-band interferometric radiometer (Microwave Interferometric Radiometer using Aperture Synthesis), was launched on November 2009. Due to the lack of L-band passive ocean measurements from space, several prelaunch forward models were developed and initially used in the SMOS ocean salinity operational processor. In this paper, an update of the prelaunch semi-empirical forward model is presented, using for the first time, real SMOS data. In particular, the ocean surface emissivity modulation at L-band due to rough sea surface is reviewed and reanalyzed. A new model definition is provided with the help of a simple neural network. The improvement is quantified in terms of retrieved salinity accuracy compared with the climatology and concerns essentially the range of wind speeds higher than 12 m·s-1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]