[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (125)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = satellite radar altimetry

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
37 pages, 4497 KiB  
Review
Satellite Oceanography in NOAA: Research, Development, Applications, and Services Enabling Societal Benefits from Operational and Experimental Missions
by Eric Bayler, Paul S. Chang, Jacqueline L. De La Cour, Sean R. Helfrich, Alexander Ignatov, Jeff Key, Veronica Lance, Eric W. Leuliette, Deirdre A. Byrne, Yinghui Liu, Xiaoming Liu, Menghua Wang, Jianwei Wei and Paul M. DiGiacomo
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(14), 2656; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16142656 - 20 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1686
Abstract
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) facilitates and enables societal benefits from satellite oceanography, supporting operational and experimental satellite missions, developing new and improved ocean observing capabilities, engaging users by developing and distributing fit-for-purpose data, [...] Read more.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) facilitates and enables societal benefits from satellite oceanography, supporting operational and experimental satellite missions, developing new and improved ocean observing capabilities, engaging users by developing and distributing fit-for-purpose data, applications, tools, and services, and curating, translating, and integrating diverse data products into information that supports informed decision making. STAR research, development, and application efforts span from passive visible, infrared, and microwave observations to active altimetry, scatterometry, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) observations. These efforts directly support NOAA’s operational geostationary (GEO) and low Earth orbit (LEO) missions with calibration/validation and retrieval algorithm development, implementation, maintenance, and anomaly resolution, as well as leverage the broader international constellation of environmental satellites for NOAA’s benefit. STAR’s satellite data products and services enable research, assessments, applications, and, ultimately, decision making for understanding, predicting, managing, and protecting ocean and coastal resources, as well as assessing impacts of change on the environment, ecosystems, and climate. STAR leads the NOAA Coral Reef Watch and CoastWatch/OceanWatch/PolarWatch Programs, helping people access and utilize global and regional satellite data for ocean, coastal, and ecosystem applications. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oceans from Space V)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Climatology maps for 2012–2023 (SNPP VIIRS) for (<b>a</b>) suspended particulate matter and (<b>b</b>) water class product over global oceans and inland waters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Three-sensor (VIIRS-SNPP, VIIRS-NOAA-20, and OLCI-S3A)-derived global daily gap-free 2 km ocean color products for (<b>a</b>) Chl-a, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">K<sub>d</sub></span> (490), and (<b>c</b>) SPM on 1 July 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Global ocean LEO Level-3 super-collated (L3S-LEO) daily (DY) SST product for 1 April 2024 showing substantial global daily coverage of satellite observations (approximately 65% on average). The L3S-LEO DY time series begins in the year 2000. Gray areas indicate no SST data due to probable clouds or other quality flags and white areas represent no SST data due to probable ice.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Near-real-time infrared-derived sea ice products. Clockwise from upper left: VIIRS sea ice surface temperature, VIIRS sea ice thickness, VIIRS + AMSR2 ice concentration, and VIIRS + AMSR2 ice motion, with the AMSR2 providing passive microwave data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>SAR altimeter processor lead detection: blue—floe, yellow—ambiguous, red—lead.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>High-resolution ASCAT product utilizing the coastal and tropical cyclone wind speed retrieval improvements for Hurricane Ida on 28 August 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR, Radarsat-2) data for Tropical Cyclone Freddy 11 September 2023 at 10:05 UTC: (<b>left</b>) 0.5 km resolution wind speed and (<b>right</b>) full storm radial profile, depicting that the 0.5 km processing extracts a maximum velocity (<span class="html-italic">VMax</span>) of 136.3 kts.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>NOAA Ocean Winds and Sea Ice Winter field experiment—2 March 2021. Flight track included near-coincident under-flights of CryoSat-2 and Sentinel-3A satellites and a survey of the SIDEx ice camp.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Spatial distribution of Arctic sea ice in 1982 (<b>left</b>) and 2020 (<b>right</b>) for perennial and seasonal sea ice and snow on land.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>Top</b>) NOAA Coral Reef Watch composite 5 km Satellite Bleaching Alert Area 2023 Year-to-Date Maximum map, depicting the highest bleaching alert levels experienced by tropical coral reefs as of 29 August 2023. In 2023, severe marine heat stress (Bleaching Alert Levels 1 and 2) associated with mass coral bleaching and mortality occurred along Florida, in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, throughout the eastern Tropical Pacific, and in swaths extending from the Sea of Japan to the South China Sea, and from eastern Papua New Guinea to the Cook Islands. (<b>Bottom</b>) NOAA Coral Reef Watch modeled Four-Month Coral Bleaching Heat Stress Outlook for 29 August 2023, showing predicted ocean heat stress (and corresponding bleaching alert levels) from September to December 2023.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 7205 KiB  
Article
Recovery of Time Series of Water Volume in Lake Ranco (South Chile) through Satellite Altimetry and Its Relationship with Climatic Phenomena
by Patricio Fuentes-Aguilera, Lien Rodríguez-López, Luc Bourrel and Frédéric Frappart
Water 2024, 16(14), 1997; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16141997 - 14 Jul 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1572
Abstract
In the context of escalating climate change-induced impacts on water resources, robust monitoring tools are imperative. Satellite altimetry, benefiting from technical improvement such as the use of SAR and InSAR techniques and tracking modes considering topography, is emerging as a crucial means of [...] Read more.
In the context of escalating climate change-induced impacts on water resources, robust monitoring tools are imperative. Satellite altimetry, benefiting from technical improvement such as the use of SAR and InSAR techniques and tracking modes considering topography, is emerging as a crucial means of estimating lake levels, data that are fundamental to understanding climate dynamics. This study delves into the use of satellite-altimetry-determined water levels to analyze changes in water storage and superficial area in Lake Ranco, in south-central Chile, from 1995 to 2023. The main objective is to provide valuable information for water-resource management and policy formulation. Leveraging AlTiS software (v2.2.9-0-gf5938ab), radar-altimetry data from the missions ERS-2, ENVISAT, SARAL, and Sentinel-3A were processed, generating a complete time series of water levels. The lake-level data were complemented by the bathymetric data for the lake to obtain the variation in the area and volume in the period 1995–2023. These results were analyzed with respect to hydrometeorological data from the study area, such as precipitation, temperature, relative humidity, and potential evapotranspiration. Additionally, the effects of ENSO (ENSO 3.4 index) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index (PDO) were considered. Results reveal a strong correlation between altimetry-derived lake levels and observed in situ data, with a mean square error of 0.04 m, a coefficient of determination of 0.99, an index of agreement of 0.99, and a Kling−Gupta efficiency of 0.90. The analysis of climatic variables showed that variations in lake level coincide with changes in precipitation within the study area and also showed the influence of variations in temperature and potential evapotranspiration. Additionally, the effects of the ENSO phenomenon can be seen within the study area for its cold phase (i.e., La Niña) in the 2010–2012 period and for its warm phase (i.e., El Niño) in the 2015–2016 period, with a decrease and increase in precipitation, respectively. These effects were enhanced when the cold and warm phases of the ENSO and PDO phenomena occured. The successful application of satellite altimetry demonstrated in this study underscores its critical role in advancing our understanding and management of water resources amidst changing climate scenarios. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Location of Chile in South America, (<b>b</b>) Lake Ranco basin and Los Ríos Region, (<b>c</b>) Lake Ranco basin elevations, location of meteorological stations (magenta points), and the basin centroid (blue point).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Bathymetry map of Lake Ranco. Elevations are shown in [m.a.s.l.].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Variation in lake (<b>a</b>) volume [km<sup>3</sup>] and (<b>b</b>) area [km<sup>2</sup>] with elevation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Precipitation histogram for the period 1995–2023 [mm] and (<b>b</b>) precipitation histogram (blue) [mm] and relative humidity (grey) [%] in the Lake Ranco basin during the period 2017–2023. Information was obtained from the DGA, CAMELS-CL, and CHIRPS databases.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Temperature (red) and potential evapotranspiration (yellow) over Lake Ranco in the study period. Information obtained from the DGA database.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Lake-level fluctuations [m] between 2017 and 2023 from the DGA In-Line Hydrometeorological System (blue line) and derived from Sentinel-3A altimetry measurements (black dots). The segmented red line represents the trend of the Lake Ranco level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Variation in (<b>a</b>) area [km<sup>2</sup>] and (<b>b</b>) volume [km<sup>3</sup>] in Lake Ranco through the study period based on bathymetry and Sentinel-3A-based water levels.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Lake Ranco levels [m] between 1995 and 2023, combining information from the ERS-2 (1995–2003, orange), ENVISAT (2003–2010, green), SARAL (2013–2017, cyan), and Sentinel 3A (2018–2023, blue) missions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Lake Ranco (<b>a</b>) variation in lake area [km<sup>2</sup>] and (<b>b</b>) volume [km<sup>3</sup>] between 1995 and 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Interannual variations in monthly (<b>a</b>) anomalies of ENSO 3.4 [°C] (blue for the warm phase and red for the cold phase) (obtained from <a href="https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/sst" target="_blank">https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/sst</a>, accessed 9 July 2024), (<b>b</b>) PDO indices [°C] (blue for the warm phase and red for the cold phase) (obtained from <a href="https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/pdo/" target="_blank">https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/pdo/</a>, accessed 9 July 2024), and interannual variations in annual (<b>c</b>) area [km<sup>2</sup>] and (<b>d</b>) volume [km<sup>3</sup>] in Lake Ranco over 1995–2023.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 22139 KiB  
Article
Improving the Estimation of Lake Ice Thickness with High-Resolution Radar Altimetry Data
by Anna Mangilli, Claude R. Duguay, Justin Murfitt, Thomas Moreau, Samira Amraoui, Jaya Sree Mugunthan, Pierre Thibaut and Craig Donlon
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(14), 2510; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16142510 - 9 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1289
Abstract
Lake ice thickness (LIT) is a sensitive indicator of climate change, identified as a thematic variable of Lakes as an Essential Climate Variable (ECV) by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). Here, we present a novel and efficient analytically based retracking approach for [...] Read more.
Lake ice thickness (LIT) is a sensitive indicator of climate change, identified as a thematic variable of Lakes as an Essential Climate Variable (ECV) by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). Here, we present a novel and efficient analytically based retracking approach for estimating LIT from high-resolution Ku-band (13.6 GHz) synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) altimetry data. The retracker method is based on the analytical modeling of the SAR radar echoes over ice-covered lakes that show a characteristic double-peak feature attributed to the reflection of the Ku-band radar waves at the snow–ice and ice–water interfaces. The method is applied to Sentinel-6 Unfocused SAR (UFSAR) and Fully Focused SAR (FFSAR) data, with their corresponding tailored waveform model, referred to as the SAR_LIT and FFSAR_LIT retracker, respectively. We found that LIT retrievals from Sentinel-6 high-resolution SAR data at different posting rates are fully consistent with the LIT estimations obtained from thermodynamic lake ice model simulations and from low-resolution mode (LRM) Sentinel-6 and Jason-3 data over two ice seasons during the tandem phase of the two satellites, demonstrating the continuity between LRM and SAR LIT retrievals. By comparing the Sentinel-6 SAR LIT estimates to optical/radar images, we found that the Sentinel-6 LIT measurements are fully consistent with the evolution of the lake surface conditions, accurately capturing the seasonal transitions of ice formation and melt. The uncertainty in the LIT estimates obtained with Sentinel-6 UFSAR data at 20 Hz is in the order of 5 cm, meeting the GCOS requirements for LIT measurements. This uncertainty is significantly smaller, by a factor of 2 to 3 times, than the uncertainty obtained with LRM data. The FFSAR processing at 140 Hz provides even better LIT estimates, with 20% smaller uncertainties. The LIT retracker analysis performed on data at the higher posting rate (140 Hz) shows increased performance in comparison to the 20 Hz data, especially during the melt transition period, due to the increased statistics. The LIT analysis has been performed over two representative lakes, Great Slave Lake and Baker Lake (Canada), demonstrating that the results are robust and hold for lake targets that differ in terms of size, bathymetry, snow/ice properties, and seasonal evolution of LIT. The SAR LIT retrackers presented are promising tools for monitoring the inter-annual variability and trends in LIT from current and future SAR altimetry missions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of the Cryosphere (Second Edition))
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Illustration of the evolution of the bimodal lake ice thickness signature in Sentinel-6 UFSAR radargrams (<b>left column</b>) and the normalized waveforms (<b>right column</b>) at 20 Hz resolution at Great Slave Lake in December 2021 (<b>top</b>), February 2021 (<b>second row</b>), end of April 2021 (<b>third row</b>), and May 2021 (<b>bottom</b>). The black line in the plots of the right column corresponds to the mean waveform in the selected region of the lake.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Illustration of the evolution of the bimodal lake ice thickness signature in Sentinel-6 FFSAR radargrams (<b>left column</b>) and the normalized waveforms (<b>right column</b>) at 140 Hz posting rate at Great Slave Lake in December 2021 (<b>top</b>), February 2021 (<b>second row</b>), end of April 2021 (<b>third row</b>), and May 2021 (<b>bottom</b>). The black line in the plots of the right column corresponds to the mean waveform in the selected region of the lake.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The target lakes of the LIT analysis, Great Slave Lake and Baker Lake, Canada, are shown on the map (<b>bottom</b>) and with the satellite ground tracks superimposed on the lakes (<b>upper left</b> and <b>right</b>, respectively).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Examples of Sentinel-6 UFSAR waveform with, in blue, the <tt>SAR_LIT</tt> fit (<b>left column</b>) and LIT histograms, with the corresponding Gaussian fits (<b>right column</b>), in the RoI of Great Slave Lake at the end of December 2020 (<b>top row</b>), in February 2021 (<b>second row</b>), in April 2021 (<b>third row</b>), and mid-May 2021 (<b>bottom row</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Examples of Sentinel-6 FFSAR waveforms with, in blue, the <tt>FFSAR_LIT</tt> fit (<b>left column</b>) and LIT histograms, with the corresponding Gaussian fits (<b>right column</b>), in the RoI of Great Slave Lake at the end of December 2020 (<b>top row</b>), in February 2021 (<b>second row</b>), in April 2021 (<b>third row</b>), and mid-May 2021 (<b>bottom row</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Example of the spatial evolution of the LIT estimates at Great Slave Lake (<b>left column</b>) and Baker Lake (<b>right column</b>) in February 2021. The top row plots show the results for the Sentinel-6 UFSAR data at 20 Hz, while the bottom row plots for the Sentinel-6 FFSAR data at 140 Hz. The gray lines in the bottom panels of the figures show the evolution of the reduced <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mi>χ</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msup> </semantics></math> goodness of fit metric.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of the LIT estimates obtained with Sentinel-6 high-resolution SAR data for one ice season at Great Slave Lake (<b>left</b>) and Baker Lake (<b>right</b>). The curves refer to UFSAR at 20 Hz (red), UFSAR at 140 Hz (purple), and FFSAR at 140 Hz (cyan).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Evolution of LIT estimates at Great Slave Lake obtained with Sentinel-6 UFSAR at 20 Hz data (red), Sentinel-6 LRM data (green) and Jason-3 data (blue) for the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 ice seasons (upper panel). The shaded regions of the corresponding colors refer to the LIT error envelopes at 1<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>σ</mi> </semantics></math> for each case. The orange shaded area shows the evolution of LIT obtained from CLIMo thermodynamic simulations with different on-ice snow scenarios (see text in <a href="#sec4dot3-remotesensing-16-02510" class="html-sec">Section 4.3</a> for details). The middle panel shows the evolution of the mean 2 m air temperature (black) with the minimum and maximum values (gray shading) extracted from ERA5 data. The bottom panel shows the evolution of the 1<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>σ</mi> </semantics></math> LIT uncertainties for the three datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Evolution of the LIT estimates at Baker Lake obtained with different datasets (see the caption of <a href="#remotesensing-16-02510-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> for details).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Sentinel–6 20 Hz UFSAR LIT estimates superimposed on radar/optical images taken on the same dates for Great Slave Lake (<b>left</b>) and Baker Lake (<b>right</b>) on the lake area shown in the red boxes in the top row panels.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 4669 KiB  
Review
GNSS Reflectometry-Based Ocean Altimetry: State of the Art and Future Trends
by Tianhe Xu, Nazi Wang, Yunqiao He, Yunwei Li, Xinyue Meng, Fan Gao and Ernesto Lopez-Baeza
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(10), 1754; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16101754 - 15 May 2024
Viewed by 1888
Abstract
For the past 20 years, Global Navigation Satellite System reflectometry (GNSS-R) technology has successfully shown its potential for remote sensing of the Earth’s surface, including ocean and land surfaces. It is a multistatic radar that uses the GNSS signals reflected from the Earth’s [...] Read more.
For the past 20 years, Global Navigation Satellite System reflectometry (GNSS-R) technology has successfully shown its potential for remote sensing of the Earth’s surface, including ocean and land surfaces. It is a multistatic radar that uses the GNSS signals reflected from the Earth’s surface to extract land and ocean characteristics. Because of its numerous advantages such as low cost, multiple signal sources, and all-day/weather and high-spatiotemporal-resolution observations, this new technology has attracted the attention of many researchers. One of its most promising applications is GNSS-R ocean altimetry, which can complement existing techniques such as tide gauging and radar satellite altimetry. Since this technology for ocean altimetry was first proposed in 1993, increasing progress has been made including diverse methods for processing reflected signals (such as GNSS interferometric reflectometry, conventional GNSS-R, and interferometric GNSS-R), different instruments (such as an RHCP antenna with one geodetic receiver, a linearly polarized antenna, and a system of simultaneously used RHCP and LHCP antennas with a dedicated receiver), and different platform applications (such as ground-based, air-borne, or space-borne). The development of multi-mode and multi-frequency GNSS, especially for constructing the Chinese BeiDou Global Navigation Satellite System (BDS-3), has enabled more free signals to be used to further promote GNSS-R applications. The GNSS has evolved from its initial use of GPS L1 and L2 signals to include other GNSS bands and multi-GNSS signals. Using more advanced, multi-frequency, and multi-mode signals will bring new opportunities to develop GNSS-R technology. In this paper, studies of GNSS-R altimetry are reviewed from four perspectives: (1) classifications according to different data processing methods, (2) different platforms, (3) development of different receivers, and (4) our work. We overview the current status of GNSS-R altimetry and describe its fundamental principles, experiments, recent applications to ocean altimetry, and future directions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue SoOP-Reflectometry or GNSS-Reflectometry: Theory and Applications)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Schematic of the GNSS-IR experiment setup.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p><b>Upper</b>: one example of the detrended SNR observations for BDS PRN 08 at B1 frequency at one station. <b>Below</b>: Lomb–Scargle periodogram (LSP) spectral analysis of the detrended SNR observations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Example of two combined multipath errors (<b>top</b> panel) from a dual–frequency code combination for Galileo signals at station AT01 and their correspondent LSP figures (<b>bottom</b> panel), from which we can see two peaks corresponding to dual–frequency signals. The blue and red lines represent two different combined multipath errors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic of (<b>a</b>) ground-based and (<b>b</b>) air-borne GNSS-R altimetry with two antennas.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Measured 2-D delay-Doppler maps (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and 1-D delay maps (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) for a ground-based (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and a space-borne (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) GNSS-R experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Geometry of GNSS-R altimetry when (<b>a</b>) considering the Earth as a flat surface, and (<b>b</b>) considering the Earth’s curvature.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Schematic of space-borne GNSS-R altimetry with two antennas in which the Earth’s curvature should be considered.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Flowchart of the real-time GNSS-R SDR. Modules with different single colors are handled by the GPU and CPU. The mixed-color modules represent data transfer between the CPU and the GPU as depicted in [<a href="#B119-remotesensing-16-01754" class="html-bibr">119</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Sea surface heights derived from (<b>a</b>) B1C and (<b>b</b>) B2a code-level measurements with the moving average and radar altimeter data in one coastal GNSS-R experiment as reported in [<a href="#B52-remotesensing-16-01754" class="html-bibr">52</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Delay map of the crosstalk signal in one coastal GNSS-R experiment as reported in [<a href="#B120-remotesensing-16-01754" class="html-bibr">120</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Reflector heights estimated from the (<b>a</b>) in-harbor and (<b>b</b>) off-shore ship-borne GNSS-R experiments as reported in [<a href="#B51-remotesensing-16-01754" class="html-bibr">51</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Equations of the proposed phase combination method for GNSS-R altimetry referenced from [<a href="#B116-remotesensing-16-01754" class="html-bibr">116</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Mean revisit times for the four-system GNSS-R simulations at different latitudes during a single cycle at L2 frequencies as found in [<a href="#B63-remotesensing-16-01754" class="html-bibr">63</a>].</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 51888 KiB  
Article
Introducing the Azimuth Cutoff as an Independent Measure for Characterizing Sea-State Dynamics in SAR Altimetry
by Ourania Altiparmaki, Samira Amraoui, Marcel Kleinherenbrink, Thomas Moreau, Claire Maraldi, Pieter N. A. M. Visser and Marc Naeije
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(7), 1292; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16071292 - 6 Apr 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1278
Abstract
This study presents the first azimuth cutoff analysis in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) altimetry, aiming to assess its applicability in characterizing sea-state dynamics. In SAR imaging, the azimuth cutoff serves as a proxy for the shortest waves, in terms of wavelength, that can [...] Read more.
This study presents the first azimuth cutoff analysis in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) altimetry, aiming to assess its applicability in characterizing sea-state dynamics. In SAR imaging, the azimuth cutoff serves as a proxy for the shortest waves, in terms of wavelength, that can be detected by the satellite under certain wind and wave conditions. The magnitude of this parameter is closely related to the wave orbital velocity variance, a key parameter for characterizing wind-wave systems. We exploit wave modulations exhibited in the tail of fully-focused SAR waveforms and extract the azimuth cutoff from the radar signal through the analysis of its along-track autocorrelation function. We showcase the capability of Sentinel-6A in deriving these two parameters based on analyses in the spatial and wavenumber domains, accompanied by a discussion of the limitations. We use Level-1A high-resolution Sentinel-6A data from one repeat cycle (10 days) globally to verify our findings against wave modeled data. In the spatial domain analysis, the estimation of azimuth cutoff involves fitting a Gaussian function to the along-track autocorrelation function. Results reveal pronounced dependencies on wind speed and significant wave height, factors primarily determining the magnitude of the velocity variance. In extreme sea states, the parameters are underestimated by the altimeter, while in relatively calm sea states and in the presence of swells, a substantial overestimation trend is observed. We introduce an alternative approach to extract the azimuth cutoff by identifying the fall-off wavenumber in the wavenumber domain. Results indicate effective mitigation of swell-induced errors, with some additional sensitivity to extreme sea states compared to the spatial domain approach. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Satellite Altimetry II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Examples of Sentinel-6A fully-focused SAR waveform-tail radargrams. Wind and wave conditions, given in the title of each panel, obtained from collocated ERA5 products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Interpolated significant wave height (<b>left column</b>) and mean zero-up crossing period (<b>right column</b>) parameters of MFWAM (<b>top row</b>) and ERA5 (<b>bottom row</b>) to Sentinel-6A tracks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Ratio of the <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <msub> <mi>υ</mi> <mrow> <mi>w</mi> <mi>w</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi>h</mi> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> <mn>2</mn> </msubsup> </semantics></math> wave orbital velocity variance of high-frequency waves (&gt;0.58 Hz) to the <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <msub> <mi>υ</mi> <mrow> <mi>w</mi> <mi>w</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> <mn>2</mn> </msubsup> </semantics></math> total wave orbital velocity variance versus wind speed. The colors represent the different fetches.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Example of the along-track autocorrelation function, depicted in gray color, of a Sentinel-6A (S6A) fully-focused SAR waveform-tail radargram acquired for a scene characterized by moderate wind and wave conditions. The blue dashed line represents the Gaussian function. The yellow dash-dotted lines represent the Sentinel-6A azimuth cutoff estimate. Sea-state conditions are obtained from ERA5 products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatter plots of the azimuth cutoff estimated by Sentinel-6A in comparison to ERA5 (<b>top panels</b>) and MFWAM (<b>bottom panels</b>). In the left and right panels, color gradations correspond to wind speed and significant wave height, respectively. The square markers linked with solid gray lines depict the average value of points grouped every 50 m considering wave model-derived intervals. The gray dashed lines represent the scenario where the azimuth cutoff of the satellite and wave model would align perfectly.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Examples of Sentinel-6A fully-focused SAR waveform-tail radargrams (<b>left panels</b>) and their along-track autocorrelation functions (<b>right panels</b>), illustrated in gray color. The blue dashed line represents the Gaussian function. The yellow, pink, and brown dash-dotted lines represent the Sentinel-6A, ERA5 and MFWAM azimuth cutoff estimates, respectively. Sea state conditions are obtained from ERA5 products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Examples of along-track autocorrelation functions, depicted in gray color, concerning SAR waveform-tail radargrams dominated by swells traveling in the cross-track direction (<b>top left</b>), at angle (<b>top right</b> and <b>bottom left</b>) and in the along-track direction (<b>bottom right</b>). The blue dashed line represents the Gaussian function. The yellow, pink, and brown dash-dotted lines represent the Sentinel-6A, ERA5 and MFWAM azimuth cutoff estimates, respectively. Sea-state conditions are obtained from ERA5 products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Example of the spectral autocorrelation function (gray solid line). The yellow circular marker represents the fall-off wavenumber identified as the intersection point between the gray dotted line, depicting the threshold line equal to five times the median spectral along-track autocorrelation function, and the blue solid line representing the seventh-order polynomial model. The pink and brown dash-dotted lines represent the fall-off wavenumber estimates from ERA5 and MFWAM, respectively. The yellow dash-dotted represents the Sentinel-6A fall-off wavenumber obtained from the spatial domain-derived azimuth cutoff estimate. Sea-state conditions are obtained from ERA5 products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Global maps of the azimuth cutoff as derived by ERA5 (<b>top left</b>), MFWAM (<b>top right</b>), Sentinel-6A from the spatial domain (SD) analysis (<b>bottom left</b>), and Sentinel-6A from the wavenumber domain (or Fourier Domain—FD) analysis (<b>bottom right</b>). Each map is accompanied by a histogram showing the distribution of the estimates on a logarithmic scale.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Global maps of the velocity variance as derived by ERA5 (<b>top left</b>), MFWAM (<b>top right</b>), Sentinel-6A from the spatial domain (SD) analysis (<b>bottom left</b>), and Sentinel-6A from the wavenumber domain (or Fourier Domain—FD) analysis (<b>bottom right</b>). Each map is accompanied by a histogram showing the distribution of the estimates on a logarithmic scale.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Global maps of the peak wave period and wind speed as obtained from ERA5 (<b>top panels</b>) and the velocity variance differences between ERA5 and Sentinel-6A in the spatial domain (SD) (<b>mid left</b>) and wavenumber domain (or Fourier Domain—FD) (<b>mid right</b>), MFWAM and Sentinel-6A in the spatial (<b>bottom left</b>) and wavenumber (<b>bottom right</b>) domains. Histograms of velocity variance differences accompany the middle and bottom panels.</p>
Full article ">
37 pages, 4020 KiB  
Review
Inland Water Level Monitoring from Satellite Observations: A Scoping Review of Current Advances and Future Opportunities
by Stylianos Kossieris, Valantis Tsiakos, Georgios Tsimiklis and Angelos Amditis
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(7), 1181; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16071181 - 28 Mar 2024
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3167
Abstract
Inland water level and its dynamics are key components in the global water cycle and land surface hydrology, significantly influencing climate variability and water resource management. Satellite observations, in particular altimetry missions, provide inland water level time series for nearly three decades. Space-based [...] Read more.
Inland water level and its dynamics are key components in the global water cycle and land surface hydrology, significantly influencing climate variability and water resource management. Satellite observations, in particular altimetry missions, provide inland water level time series for nearly three decades. Space-based remote sensing is regarded as a cost-effective technique that provides measurements of global coverage and homogeneous accuracy in contrast to in-situ sensors. The advent of Open-Loop Tracking Command (OLTC), and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) mode strengthened the use of altimetry missions for inland water level monitoring. However, it is still very challenging to obtain accurate measurements of water level over narrow rivers and small lakes. This scoping systematic literature review summarizes and disseminates the research findings, highlights major results, and presents the limitations regarding inland water level monitoring from satellite observations between 2018 and 2022. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and through a double screening process, 48 scientific publications were selected meeting the eligibility criteria. To summarize the achievements of the previous 5 years, we present fundamental statistical results of the publications, such as the annual number of publications, scientific journals, keywords, and study regions per continent and type of inland water body. Also, publications associated with specific satellite missions were analyzed. The findings show that Sentinel-3 is the dominant satellite mission, while the ICESat-2 laser altimetry mission has exhibited a high growth trend. Furthermore, publications including radar altimetry missions were charted based on the retracking algorithms, presenting the novel and improved methods of the last five years. Moreover, this review confirms that there is a lack of research on the collaboration of altimetry data with machine learning techniques. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Satellite Altimetry II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Timeline of modern radar altimetry missions. <a href="https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/missions/timeline-altimetry.html" target="_blank">https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/missions/timeline-altimetry.html</a> (version 2023/08), accessed on 21 March 2024.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart illustrates the different phases of the scoping review paper and the number of selected articles at each stage of the process.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The ranking performance curve determined by randomly selecting a training-test dataset using a 50/50 split in the prioritization modeling. The yellow line represents the baseline performance we should expect if the ranking score had been generated completely at random. The green line shows the performance based on the test dataset, while the blue line denotes the training set.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Number of publications per peer-reviewed journal between 2018 and 2022. In terms of simplicity, journals that appeared only once were homogenized in the ‘Other’ class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Number of published articles per year.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Percentage of published articles that present or not novel or improved retrackers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Number of applications per altimetry mission and year, from 2018 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Number of applications per measurement mode of CryoSat-2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Number of applications per satellite mission and year.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Number of applications per continent and type.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 35515 KiB  
Article
Optimal Configuration of Omega-Kappa FF-SAR Processing for Specular and Non-Specular Targets in Altimetric Data: The Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich Study Case
by Samira Amraoui, Pietro Guccione, Thomas Moreau, Marta Alves, Ourania Altiparmaki, Charles Peureux, Lisa Recchia, Claire Maraldi, François Boy and Craig Donlon
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(6), 1112; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16061112 - 21 Mar 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1474
Abstract
In this study, the full-focusing (FF) algorithm is reviewed with the objective of optimizing it for processing data from different types of surfaces probed in altimetry. In particular, this work aims to provide a set of optimal FF processing parameters for the Sentinel-6 [...] Read more.
In this study, the full-focusing (FF) algorithm is reviewed with the objective of optimizing it for processing data from different types of surfaces probed in altimetry. In particular, this work aims to provide a set of optimal FF processing parameters for the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich (S6-MF) mission. The S6-MF satellite carries an advanced radar altimeter offering a wide range of potential FF-based applications which are just beginning to be explored and require prior optimization of this processing. In S6-MF, the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) altimeter acquisitions are known to be aliased in the along-track direction. Depending on the target, aliasing can be tolerated or may be a severe impairment to provide the level of performance expected from FF processing. Another key aspect to consider in this optimization study is the unprecedented resolution of the FF processing, which results in a higher posting rate than the standard SAR processing. This work investigates the relationship between posting rate and noise levels and provides recommendations for optimal algorithm configurations in various scenarios, including transponder, open ocean, and specular targets like sea-ice and inland water scenes. The Omega–Kappa (WK) algorithm, which has demonstrated superior CPU efficiency compared to the back-projection (BP) algorithm, is considered for this study. But, unlike BP, it operates in the Doppler frequency domain, necessitating further precise spectral and time domain settings. Based on the results of this work, real case studies using S6-MF acquisitions are presented. We first compare S6-MF FF radargrams with Sentinel-1 (S1) images to showcase the potential of optimally configured FF processing. For highly specular surfaces such as sea-ice, distinct techniques are employed for lead signature identification. S1 relies on image-based lineic reconstruction, while S6-MF utilizes phase coherency of focalized pulses for lead detection. The study also delves into two-dimensional wave spectra derived from the amplitude modulation of image/radargrams, with a focus on a coastal example. This case is especially intriguing, as it vividly illustrates different sea states characterized by varying spectral peak positions over time. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Satellite Altimetry II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Comparison of Doppler spectra for different integration times over (<b>a</b>) Gavdos transponder data (orbit cycle 042, 29 December 2021) and (<b>b</b>) open-ocean data (relative orbit 077, orbit cycle 002, 7 December 2020 at 14:20:01).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Two-dimensional level-1a Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich data over different areas: transponder (<b>a</b>), inland water (<b>b</b>) and sea-ice leads (<b>c</b>) with various MSS observed. In along-track, the MSS is estimated for each case (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) by fitting the range integrated level-1a signal represented in dashed line. For the sea-ice example (<b>f</b>), two peaks are identified and fitted separately, leading to two MSS values being estimated in this area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Open ocean data-block with its profile in Doppler frequency before (in blue) and after (in orange) antenna pattern compensation (on the <b>left</b> hand side). The linear correspondence between Doppler frequency and along-track time (slow time) is also represented (on the <b>right</b> hand side).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Radargram of Lot river area, France (dataset: 21 December 2020, time 17:10:28), shown using the same power dynamics and four different processing cases: (<b>a</b>) antenna pattern compensation, (<b>b</b>) Hamming window, (<b>c</b>) Gaussian window with <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msup> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.4</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> and (<b>d</b>) Gaussian window with <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msup> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.2</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>. As can be seen, the signal-to-noise ratio progressively grows from case (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>), indicating the better result achieved by the use of the Gaussian window with <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>σ</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msup> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0.2</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Effect of replicas over a sea-ice lead surface. Replicas (<b>a</b>) can be identified by their parabola-shape signature on the FF radargram. This can lead (<b>b</b>) to a huge difference of several meters in the estimation of the water surface height compared to those that are unfocused, since the retracker does not distinguish replicas from the real surface signal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Transponder FF-SAR radargram with a zoom over the main signal (first column), the first replica (second column), the second replica (third column) and the third replica (fourth column). The amplitude and phase signals are displayed in the top and bottom rows, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Illustration of the replicas removal strategy on S6-MF over the Garonna river. The different panels show the original radargram at 500 Hz (<b>a</b>), the corresponding coherence (<b>b</b>) and the radargram multiplied by the coherence (<b>c</b>). The last figure corresponds to the replica removal result. The red dots show the epoch gate position from the level-2 OCOG retracker that sometimes are at replicas positions in (<b>a</b>), which is no longer the case in (<b>c</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Normalized standard deviation evolution with regards to the level of multilooking of FF single-looks. Three scenarios are plotted: theoretical decrease with independent single-looks (in black solid line), FF oceanic real data with SWH around 2m (blue solid line) and FF oceanic real data with SWH around 4m (in blue dashed line). We aim to measure the posting rate corresponding to a noise reduction of 80% represented by the horizontal black dashed line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Sea-ice lead observed by S1 and S6-MF in the Antarctic region on 24 December 2021 with a 1 min time lag between the two sensors. The first two rows show the S1 tile and the corresponding collocated S6-MF track, with (<b>a</b>) the S1 leads (in dark red) detected by the method of Longépé [<a href="#B19-remotesensing-16-01112" class="html-bibr">19</a>], (<b>b</b>) the percentage of S1 lead coverage in the S6-MF footprint and (<b>c</b>) the distance of the S1 lead from the S6-MF nadir (in meters). The third row is a zoom between 84.8 and 85 degrees of longitude with (<b>d</b>) a cross-comparison of the leads detected on S1 (represented by light green areas) versus S6-MF (represented by red dots with the sigma0 longitude profile in gray). As a reminder, a lead on S6-MF should verify two conditions: a coherence of the FF single-looks larger than 0.8 and a sigma0 of the FF multilooks larger than −170 dB. For sake of completeness in the cross-comparison, the distance to the S6-MF nadir and the percentage (here, the fraction) of the lead of the S6-MF footprint is also provided in the bottom figure. In this example, the large lead between 84.85 and 84.93 degree in longitude is seen by both sensors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Sea-ice lead observed by S1 and S6-MF in the Antarctic region on 26 June 2021- with 3 min time lag between the two sensors. For an explanation on how to read the subfigures (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>), see <a href="#remotesensing-16-01112-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a>. In this example, (<b>d</b>) several thin leads between −9.4 and −9.1 degrees in longitude are seen by FF-SAR on S6-MF, while S1 is able to detect only a larger one, which is certainly limited by its coarser resolution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Sea-ice lead observed by S1 and S6-MF in the Antarctic region on 26 June 2021- with 3 min time lag between the two sensors. For an explanation on how to read the subfigures (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>), see <a href="#remotesensing-16-01112-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a>. In this example, (<b>d</b>) several thin leads between −9.4 and −9.1 degrees in longitude are seen by FF-SAR on S6-MF, while S1 is able to detect only a larger one, which is certainly limited by its coarser resolution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The Madeira island scene overflown by S6-MF and S1A. The S6-MF track is shown in red, overlaid on (<b>a</b>) an image of the island and (<b>b</b>) the S1A image. The analysis is divided into three zones: after, over, and before the island (A, B, and C respectively). The corresponding coverage is shown by the red lines in (<b>a</b>) for S6-MF and by the boxes for (<b>b</b>) for S1A.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Two-dimensional modulation spectra computed for S6-MF (first row) and S1A (second row). The first, second and third columns correspond, respectively, to A, B and C zones. The S1A spectra are plotted in polar grid while S6-MF spectra are in cartesian grid.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>FF radargram of a sea-ice scene captured on 24 June 2021 with Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich. The radargram is compensated from antenna pattern (<b>a</b>) and has been transformed into (<b>b</b>) by the S1 lead detector providing a classification into two categories: floes in white and leads in blue.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13 Cont.
<p>FF radargram of a sea-ice scene captured on 24 June 2021 with Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich. The radargram is compensated from antenna pattern (<b>a</b>) and has been transformed into (<b>b</b>) by the S1 lead detector providing a classification into two categories: floes in white and leads in blue.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 11662 KiB  
Article
Estimating and Assessing Monthly Water Level Changes of Reservoirs and Lakes in Jiangsu Province Using Sentinel-3 Radar Altimetry Data
by Jia Xu, Min Xia, Vagner G. Ferreira, Dongmei Wang and Chongbin Liu
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(5), 808; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050808 - 26 Feb 2024
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2034
Abstract
Generating accurate monthly estimations of water level fluctuations in reservoirs and lakes is crucial for supporting effective water resource management and protection. The dual-satellite configuration of Sentinel-3 makes it possible to monitor water level changes with great coverage and short time intervals. However, [...] Read more.
Generating accurate monthly estimations of water level fluctuations in reservoirs and lakes is crucial for supporting effective water resource management and protection. The dual-satellite configuration of Sentinel-3 makes it possible to monitor water level changes with great coverage and short time intervals. However, the potential of Sentinel-3’s Synthetic Aperture Radar Altimetry (SRAL) data to enable operational monitoring of water levels across Jiangsu Province on a monthly basis has not yet been fully explored. This study demonstrated and validated the use of Sentinel-3’s SRAL to generate accurate monthly water level estimations needed to inform water management strategies. The monthly water levels of lakes and reservoirs from 2017 to 2021 were produced using Sentinel-3 level-2 land products. Results showed that, compared with in situ data across eight studied lakes, all lakes presented R (Pearson correlation coefficient) values greater than 0.5 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values less than 1 m. Notably, water level estimates for Tai Lake, Gaoyou Lake, and Luoma Lake were particularly accurate, with R above 0.9 and RMSE below 0.5 m. Furthermore, the monthly water level estimates derived from the Sentinel-3 data showed consistent seasonal trends over the multi-year study period. The annual water level of all lakes did not change significantly, except for Shijiu Lake, of which the difference between the highest and lowest water level was up to about 5 m. Our findings confirmed the water level observation ability of Sentinel-3. The accuracy of water level monitoring could be influenced by internal water level differences, terrain features, as well as the area and shape of the lake. Larger lakes with more altimetry sampling points tended to yield higher accuracy estimates of water level fluctuations. These results demonstrate that the frequent, wide-area coverage offered by this satellite platform provides valuable hydrological information, especially across remote regions lacking in situ data. Sentinel-3 has immense potential to support improved water security in data-scarce regions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Satellite Altimetry II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographical location of Jiangsu Province and the distribution of lakes and reservoirs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the satellite altimetry.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Workflow of water level extraction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Data quality grading of Shijiui Lake. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) depict data samples for grade one through grade four.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Time series of water level derived from Sentinel-3A retracker across Tai Lake with track A052 and compared with in situ measurements. The solid lines stand for in situ water level measurements; dash lines represent water levels derived from the Ocean (<b>a</b>), OCOG (<b>b</b>), Ice sheet (<b>c</b>), and Sea ice (<b>d</b>) retrackers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Validations of altimetry water levels after deviation correction using in situ data. The red dash line represents the 1:1 line. Note: All valid observations for 2017/2019–2020 are shown in this figure, that is, data for 2021 and invalid observations are not included.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Monthly water level changes of 13 lakes and 2 reservoirs. In the line chart depicting Chenghu Lake and Shijiu Lake, it is imperative to note that a non-uniform spacing ordinate system was employed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Water level difference between the upper and lower lakes of Weishan Lake.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Outliers in Cheng Lake (<b>a</b>) and Shijiu Lake (<b>b</b>). The base map was the seasonality map of global surface water in 2021 (Source: EC JRC/Google). The permanent water is represented in dark blue, and areas of seasonal water are shown in lighter blue. The dots represent water levels obtained from altimeter. The acquisition dates for water levels of Cheng Lake from left to right are 26 February 2019, 25 November 2020, and 9 April 2021, and the date for Shijiu Lake is 18 July 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Sentinel-3A orbits and Sentinel-3B orbits crossing lakes. (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) illustrate the trajectories of Sentinel-3A/B over eight distinct lakes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Scatter plot of R, RMSE, and the number of altimetry points. The line segments in the figure are fitted lines.</p>
Full article ">
7 pages, 4419 KiB  
Proceeding Paper
Impact of Global Warming on Water Height Using XGBOOST and MLP Algorithms
by Nilufar Makky, Khalil Valizadeh Kamran and Sadra Karimzadeh
Environ. Sci. Proc. 2024, 29(1), 83; https://doi.org/10.3390/ECRS2023-16864 - 8 Feb 2024
Viewed by 680
Abstract
Over the past few years, the effects of global warming have become more pronounced, particularly with the melting of the polar ice caps. This has led to an increase in sea levels, which poses a threat of flooding to coastal cities and islands. [...] Read more.
Over the past few years, the effects of global warming have become more pronounced, particularly with the melting of the polar ice caps. This has led to an increase in sea levels, which poses a threat of flooding to coastal cities and islands. Furthermore, monitoring and analyzing changes in water levels has proven effective for predicting natural disasters caused by the rising sea levels. One vital factor in understanding the impact of global warming is the sea surface height (SSH). Measuring the SSH can provide valuable information about changes in ocean levels. This study used data from the Jason 2 altimetry radar satellite, which provided 36 cycle periods per year, to investigate the water heights around the Hawaiian Islands in 2019. To accurately evaluate the water height variations, a specific area near the Pacific Ocean close to the Hawaiian Islands was selected. By analyzing the collected satellite data, a chart of water heights was generated, which showed an overall increase in the height over one year. This analysis provided evidence of changing ocean levels in the region, highlighting the urgency of addressing the potential threats faced by coastal communities. This study also explored several factors that contribute to water height variations, such as the sea surface temperature, precipitation, and sea surface pressure in the Google Earth Engine cloud-based platform. Algorithms, including MLP and XGBOOST, were used to model the water height within the specified range. The results showed that the XGBOOST algorithm was superior in accurately predicting the water height, with an impressive R-squared value of 0.95. In comparison, the MLP algorithm achieved an R-squared value of 0.92. This study shows that advanced machine learning techniques are effective in understanding and modeling the complex changes in the water height due to climate change. This information can help policymakers and local authorities make informed decisions and create strategies to protect coastal cities and islands from the growing threats of rising sea levels. Taking proactive measures is crucial in reducing the risks posed by more frequent and severe natural disasters caused by global warming. Full article
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of ECRS 2023)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The process of study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The architecture of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The architecture of the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBOOST) model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Compatibility between testing and training in MLP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Compatibility between testing and training in XGBOOST.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The trend of SSH (Y) during 36 cycles (X).</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 15023 KiB  
Article
Expected Precision of Gravity Gradient Recovered from Ka-Band Radar Interferometer Observations and Impact of Instrument Errors
by Hengyang Guo, Xiaoyun Wan, Fei Wang and Song Tian
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(3), 576; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16030576 - 2 Feb 2024
Viewed by 1415
Abstract
Full tensor of gravity gradients contains extremely large amounts of information, which is one of the most important sources for research on recovery seafloor topography and underwater matching navigation. The calculation and accuracy of the full tensor of gravity gradients are worth studying. [...] Read more.
Full tensor of gravity gradients contains extremely large amounts of information, which is one of the most important sources for research on recovery seafloor topography and underwater matching navigation. The calculation and accuracy of the full tensor of gravity gradients are worth studying. The Ka-band interferometric radar altimeter (KaRIn) of surface water and ocean topography (SWOT) mission enables high spatial resolution of sea surface height (SSH), which would be beneficial for the calculation of gravity gradients. However, there are no clear accuracy results for the gravity gradients (the gravity gradient tensor represents the second-order derivative of the gravity potential) recovered based on SWOT data. This study evaluated the possible precision of gravity gradients using the discretization method based on simulated SWOT wide-swath data and investigated the impact of instrument errors. The data are simulated based on the sea level anomaly data provided by the European Space Agency. The instrument errors are simulated based on the power spectrum data provided in the SWOT error budget document. Firstly, the full tensor of gravity gradients (SWOT_GGT) is calculated based on deflections of the vertical and gravity anomaly. The distinctions of instrument errors on the ascending and descending orbits are also taken into account in the calculation. The precision of the Tzz component is evaluated by the vertical gravity gradient model provided by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. All components of SWOT_GGT are validated by the gravity gradients model, which is calculated by the open-source software GrafLab based on spherical harmonic. The Tzz component has the poorest precision among all the components. The reason for the worst accuracy of the Tzz component may be that it is derived by Txx and Tyy, Tzz would have a larger error than Txx and Tyy. The precision of all components is better than 6 E. Among the various errors, the effect of phase error and KaRIn error (random error caused by interferometric radar) on the results is greater than 2 E. The effect of the other four errors on the results is about 0.5 E. Utilizing multi-cycle data for the full tensor of gravity gradients recovery can suppress the effect of errors. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing in Space Geodesy and Cartography Methods II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The Bay of Bengal and its surrounding areas. The red solid line represents the boundary between tectonic plates, while the red dashed line indicates the approximate location of Ridges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The distribution of errors in one cycle and the SLA data. (<b>a</b>) KaRIn error, (<b>b</b>) roll error, (<b>c</b>) phase error, (<b>d</b>) baseline dilation error, (<b>e</b>) timing error, (<b>f</b>) wet troposphere error, (<b>g</b>) original SLA data, (<b>h</b>) all errors, (<b>i</b>) SLA data with all errors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The distribution of one-cycle errors on ascending and descending passes. (<b>a</b>) Errors in descending passes, (<b>b</b>) errors in ascending passes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Split wide-swath data into along-track and across-track directions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The SWOT_GGT derived from wide-swath data. (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xx</sub>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yy</sub>, (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>zz</sub>, (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xy</sub>, (<b>e</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xz</sub>, (<b>f</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yz</sub> (Unit: E).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The results of validation: (<b>a</b>) validation of <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>zz</sub> component of the SWOT_GGT by curv_32.1, (<b>b</b>) validation of <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>zz</sub> component of the GrafLab_GGT by curv_32.1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The GrafLab_GGT: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xx</sub>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yy</sub>, (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>zz</sub>, (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xy</sub>, (<b>e</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xz</sub>, (<b>f</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yz</sub> (Unit: E).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The SWOT_GGT calculated by Scheme 1: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xx</sub>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yy</sub>, (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>zz</sub>, (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xy</sub>, (<b>e</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xz</sub>, (<b>f</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yz</sub> (Unit: E).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The comparison results compared with Scheme 1: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xx</sub>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yy</sub>, (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>zz</sub>, (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xy</sub>, (<b>e</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>xz</sub>, (<b>f</b>) <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>yz</sub> (Unit: E).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The distribution of 19-cycle errors in ascending and descending passes. (<b>a</b>) Errors in descending passes. (<b>b</b>) errors in ascending passes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The comparison between 1-cycle errors and 19-cycle errors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Statistics of differences of SWOT_GGT between Plan A and Plan B.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>The DOV and the GA: (<b>a</b>) component η, (<b>b</b>) component ζ, (<b>c</b>) GA.</p>
Full article ">
42 pages, 18118 KiB  
Article
The ESA Permanent Facility for Altimetry Calibration in Crete: Advanced Services and the Latest Cal/Val Results
by Stelios P. Mertikas, Craig Donlon, Costas Kokolakis, Dimitrios Piretzidis, Robert Cullen, Pierre Féménias, Marco Fornari, Xenophon Frantzis, Achilles Tripolitsiotis, Jérôme Bouffard, Alessandro Di Bella, François Boy and Jerome Saunier
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(2), 223; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16020223 - 5 Jan 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1965
Abstract
Two microwave transponders have been operating in west Crete and Gavdos to calibrate international satellite radar altimeters at the Ku-band. One has been continuously operating for about 8 years at the CDN1 Cal/Val site in the mountains of Crete, and the other at [...] Read more.
Two microwave transponders have been operating in west Crete and Gavdos to calibrate international satellite radar altimeters at the Ku-band. One has been continuously operating for about 8 years at the CDN1 Cal/Val site in the mountains of Crete, and the other at the GVD1 Cal/Val site on Gavdos since 11 October 2021. This ground infrastructure is also supported at present by four sea-surface Cal/Val sites operating, some of them for over 20 years, while two additional such Cal/Val sites are under construction. This ground infrastructure is part of the European Space Agency Permanent Facility for Altimetry Calibration (PFAC), and as of 2015, it has been producing continuously a time series of range biases for Sentinel-3A, Sentinel-3B, Sentinel-6 MF, Jason-2, Jason-3, and CryoSat-2. This work presents a thorough examination of the transponder Cal/Val responses to understand and determine absolute biases for all satellite altimeters overflying this ground infrastructure. The latest calibration results for the Jason-3, Copernicus Sentinel-3A and -3B, Sentinel-6 MF, and CryoSat-2 radar altimeters are described based on four sea-surface and two transponder Cal/Val sites of the PFAC in west Crete, Greece. Absolute biases for Jason-3, Sentinel-6 MF, Sentinel-3A, Sentinel-3B, and CryoSat-2 are close to a few mm, determined using various techniques, infrastructure, and settings. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Satellite Altimetry II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The reference ground sites for altimetry calibration that constitute the European Space Agency PFAC with two transponder (CDN1, GVD1) and four sea-surface (GVD8, CRS1, RDK1, SUG1) Cal/Val sites. The ground tracks of Sentinel-6 MF/Jason-3, Sentinel-3A/B, HY-2B satellite altimetry missions over Crete, Greece are also shown. CryoSat-2 ground tracks (same as CRISTAL) are not shown in this figure but some of its orbits are given in <a href="#sec4dot7-remotesensing-16-00223" class="html-sec">Section 4.7</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The CDN1 range transponder at the calibration site, in the mountains of west Crete at 1050 m elevation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>Left</b>) The CDN1 transponder buried deep in snow. Over winters, harsh conditions prohibit satellite calibration with the CDN1 transponder. (<b>Right</b>) The assessment of the performance of the CDN1 transponder calibrations in the period 1 October 2015 to September 2023. The numbers inside the bars indicate the number of successful and cancelled calibrations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The location of the GVD1 Cal/Val site is ideal for Sentinel-6 MF calibrations as it lies under a crossover of its descending Pass No. 18 and its ascending Pass No. 109.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Two transponder Cal/Val sites (GVD1 and CDN1) and two sea-surface Cal/Val facilities (GVD8 in Gavdos and SUG1 in Crete) support calibration of Sentinel-6 MF Pass D18.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Records of output signal of the ELECTRA transponder during the Sentinel-6 MF and Jason-3 tandem calibration on 7 February 2022 for their common descending Pass No. 18.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The primary design components of the ELECTRA transponder (<b>left</b>) and final setting of the infrastructure on Gavdos Island (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Tests of the transponder carried out at ESTEC/ESA in The Netherlands (<b>left</b>) and in Athens, Greece (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Field testing of the ELECTRA transponder before its shipment to Gavdos. Temporary site CRD1 was about 3 km west of the ascending pass No. 70 of Sentinel-3B on 23 July 2021 and of CryoSat-2 on 29 July 2021 in the mainland of Crete.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p><b>Left</b>: Transponder response as recorded on Sentinel-3B for the 23 July 2021 pass over the temporary CRD1 Cal/Val site. <b>Right</b>: the power of the RF transmitted signal as recorded by the ELECTRA transponder during the 29 July 2021 CryoSat-2 transponder calibration (transponder starts recording as the data is captured).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The layout of the GVD1 Cal/Val site with the main outdoor scientific instrumentation (<b>above</b>) and the new DORIS antenna (GAVC) as well as the control room inside the calibration site in Gavdos (<b>below</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>A small fishing harbor on the south coast of Crete was selected for the SUG1 Cal/Val site (<b>left</b>). Main scientific instrumentation operating since March 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Two GNSS receivers are continuously operating at each transponder Cal/Val site: CDN1 on the mainland of Crete (<b>left</b>) and GVD1, Gavdos Island (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Time series of the GVD2 ellipsoidal height as calculated using the relative and precise point positioning.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Differences in total tropospheric delays at the CDN0 and CDN2 GNSS stations, derived through relative positioning at the time of Sentinel–6 MF transponder calibrations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Differences in total tropospheric delays for the CDN0 GNSS station as estimated by relative and precise point positioning at the CDN1 transponder site during the Sentinel–6 MF calibrations (<b>up</b>). Boxplots of the two different analyses for the determination of the total troposphere delays (<b>down</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>The location of the ELECTRA transponder on Gavdos Island and the ground tracks of Sentinel–6 MF (D18 and A109) and that of Sentinel–3A (D335) (<b>a</b>). The other two diagrams show the waveforms recorded by Sentinel–6 MF for the ascending orbit A109 (<b>b</b>) on 15 November 2022 and for the descending orbit D18 (<b>c</b>) on 12 November 2022. The ideal and the simulated waveforms (<b>d</b>) for the descending orbit D18.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17 Cont.
<p>The location of the ELECTRA transponder on Gavdos Island and the ground tracks of Sentinel–6 MF (D18 and A109) and that of Sentinel–3A (D335) (<b>a</b>). The other two diagrams show the waveforms recorded by Sentinel–6 MF for the ascending orbit A109 (<b>b</b>) on 15 November 2022 and for the descending orbit D18 (<b>c</b>) on 12 November 2022. The ideal and the simulated waveforms (<b>d</b>) for the descending orbit D18.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Four tide gauges in the Gavdos Cal/Val site (<b>left</b>). The setting of the video tide gauge experiment, carried out on 16–18 June 2021. Images of the water surface in relation to the tide pole were recorded with the camera at 1 min intervals. KVR6 tide gauge is not shown as it is located inside the equipment room, operating with a stilling well.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Differences in the hourly water level measurements as determined by the Gavdos tide gauges and the tide pole readings during the camera experiment, carried out 16—18 June 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>The Van de Casteele diagrams are generated monthly (here for January 2022) with the hourly water level measurements of the Gavdos tide gauges: KVR4 (acoustic), KVR6 (indoor radar), and KVR7 (outdoor radar). The KVR3 (radar) tide gauge is used as reference sensor.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>(<b>Upper</b>): Daily water level records of the KVR4 (acoustic), KVR6 (radar, indoor), and KVR7 (radar) tide gauges against the KVR3 (radar) reference, at the Gavdos sea-surface Cal/Val, 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021. The red line illustrates the ideal correlation, whereas the black dotted line shows the linear regression of the daily water levels. (<b>Lower</b>): Time series of deviating records with respect to reference sensor in 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>The filtering procedure for removing high-frequency noise in tide gauge time series. A four–degree Fourier series filter has been applied on the 24 h tide gauge records, centered at the time of satellite overpass. The residuals of the fitted model are used as weighting factors to integrate all available measurements and determine the final sea-surface height at the tide gauge location at the time of satellite overpass.</p>
Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Variations in sea-surface bias as a function of latitude for Sentinel–6 MF, descending pass No. 18, Cycle 13, using the Gavdos Cal/Val site and various global gravity geoid models as reference surfaces.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24
<p>Difference in Sentinel–6 MF minus Jason–3 SSH for their descending Pass D18 (<b>up</b>) and ascending Pass A109 (<b>down</b>) with respect to the mode (LRM, HR) and the processing baseline of Sentinel–6 MF products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24 Cont.
<p>Difference in Sentinel–6 MF minus Jason–3 SSH for their descending Pass D18 (<b>up</b>) and ascending Pass A109 (<b>down</b>) with respect to the mode (LRM, HR) and the processing baseline of Sentinel–6 MF products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 25
<p>Range bias of SAR observations of Sentinel–6 MF, as determined by the two transponders in Crete and Gavdos along the same descending Pass D16, but also along the ascending Pass A109 with the Gavdos transponder at the GVD1 Cal/Val site.</p>
Full article ">Figure 26
<p>Range bias of Sentinel–6 MF for its Pseudo–LRM (low-resolution mode) observations as determined by the two transponders in Crete and Gavdos.</p>
Full article ">Figure 27
<p>Sea-surface calibration results for the Sentinel–6 MF along the ascending A109 and descending D18 passes. The sea-surface Cal/Val sites in south Crete, i.e., SUG1 and RDK1 as well as the Gavdos sites were involved in this process.</p>
Full article ">Figure 28
<p>Ground tracks of Sentinel–3A (green paths) and Sentinel–3B (blue paths) are shown over west Crete and Gavdos (<b>above</b>). Range bias of Sentinel–3A and Sentinel–3B as determined by the two transponders in Crete and Gavdos (<b>below</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 29
<p>Examples of calibrating regions for the S3A altimeter using both north and south legs (blue regions within dotted lines) of the satellite’s ascending and descending passes (A14, D335, and D278) and the reference Cal/Val site of Gavdos and CRS1. Final SSH bias comes as the average of the north and south Cal/Val results over the same pass.</p>
Full article ">Figure 30
<p>An example of the regions used (blue regions within dotted lines) for calibrating the S3B altimeter using ascending and descending satellite passes (A14, A71, and D335) with respect to reference sites of CRS1 and Gavdos.</p>
Full article ">Figure 31
<p>Sea–surface bias of Sentinel–3A (<b>up</b>) and Sentinel–3B (<b>down</b>) as determined at the PFAC using north and south legs when circumstances allowed and the Cal/Val sites in Crete (CRS1, RDK1) and in Gavdos.</p>
Full article ">Figure 32
<p>Absolute range bias for the Jason–3 ascending Pass No.109 and descending Pass No.18 using the CDN1 and GVD1 transponders.</p>
Full article ">Figure 33
<p>Absolute range bias for Jason–3 after Draconic harmonics have been removed. Results correspond to Crete (6 years of data, 28 March 2016 to 29 March 2022; <span class="html-italic">N</span> = 220 values) and Gavdos transponders (less than 6 months of data, 11 October 2021 to 29 March 2022; <span class="html-italic">N</span> = 17 values).</p>
Full article ">Figure 34
<p>Sea-surface height calibration of Jason–3. Reference Cal/Val sites are Gavdos, SUG1, and RDK1 in south Crete and Gavdos (GVD8). Ascending and descending orbits were used in sea-surface calibrations. Boxplots of Jason–3 results are shown in the lower diagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 34 Cont.
<p>Sea-surface height calibration of Jason–3. Reference Cal/Val sites are Gavdos, SUG1, and RDK1 in south Crete and Gavdos (GVD8). Ascending and descending orbits were used in sea-surface calibrations. Boxplots of Jason–3 results are shown in the lower diagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 35
<p>Differences in the transponder (<b>up</b>) and the sea-surface height bias (<b>down</b>) of Sentinel–6 MF and Jason–3 using the PFAC infrastructure during tandem phase.</p>
Full article ">Figure 36
<p>Sea–surface height calibration of CryoSat–2. The diagram shows variations in SSH as a function of latitude with reference Cal/Val site Gavdos (GVD8) and for the GOPR data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 37
<p>Sea–surface height calibration of CryoSat–2. The diagram shows variations in SSH as a function of latitude with reference Cal/Val site Gavdos (GVD8) and for the GOPN data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 37 Cont.
<p>Sea–surface height calibration of CryoSat–2. The diagram shows variations in SSH as a function of latitude with reference Cal/Val site Gavdos (GVD8) and for the GOPN data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 38
<p>(<b>a</b>): The Sentinel–6 MF (red) and Sentinel-3A (green) ground tracks intersect about 22 km south of Gavdos. (<b>b</b>): The measurements of Sentinel–6 MF, Pass A109, Cycle 57, 31 May 2022, at 04:39 UTC and Sentinel–3A, Pass A14, Cycle 86, 29 May 2022, at 20:00 UTC. Missing data along the track implies land contamination and/or failure of data to pass quality standards (flags). (<b>c</b>): Illustration of the region used to determine the sea-surface height at the crossover. Twenty original observations at 20 Hz (about 8 km) centered around the crossover point are used for each mission. (<b>d</b>): Sentinel–6 MF (red), Sentinel–3A (green) and Jason-3 (yellow) ground tracks on 31 May 2022 (S6 MF and Jason–3) and 29 May 2022 (S3A). Although Sentinel–6 MF and Jason-3 pass over the same area within 30 s (tandem phase), there is an across-track offset in their orbits of the order of 350 m for this date. Thus, two distinct crossover locations of Sentinel–6 MF/Sentinel–3A and Jason–3/Sentinel–3A have been identified.</p>
Full article ">Figure 39
<p>Results of the crossover analysis for the Sentinel–6 MF/Sentinel–3A and Jason–3/Sentinel–3A pairs, 20 km south of Gavdos, Crete, Greece.</p>
Full article ">Figure 40
<p>The new corner reflector was established at its new location ALX1 in Crete for Sentinel–6 MF, Sentinel–3A, and Sentinel–3B.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 4890 KiB  
Article
A Dual-Threshold Algorithm for Ice-Covered Lake Water Level Retrieval Using Sentinel-3 SAR Altimetry Waveforms
by Fucai Tang, Peng Chen, Zhiyuan An, Mingzhu Xiong, Hao Chen and Liangcai Qiu
Sensors 2023, 23(24), 9724; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23249724 - 9 Dec 2023
Viewed by 1206
Abstract
Satellite altimetry has been proven to measure water levels in lakes and rivers effectively. The Sentinel-3A satellite is equipped with a dual-frequency synthetic aperture radar altimeter (SRAL), which allows for inland water levels to be measured with higher precision and improved spatial resolution. [...] Read more.
Satellite altimetry has been proven to measure water levels in lakes and rivers effectively. The Sentinel-3A satellite is equipped with a dual-frequency synthetic aperture radar altimeter (SRAL), which allows for inland water levels to be measured with higher precision and improved spatial resolution. However, in regions at middle and high latitudes, where many lakes are covered by ice during the winter, the non-uniformity of the altimeter footprint can substantially impact the accuracy of water level estimates, resulting in abnormal readings when applying standard SRAL synthetic aperture radar (SAR) waveform retracking algorithms (retrackers). In this study, a modified method is proposed to determine the current surface type of lakes, analyzing changes in backscattering coefficients and brightness temperature. This method aligns with ground station observations and ensures consistent surface type classification. Additionally, a dual-threshold algorithm that addresses the limitations of the original bimodal algorithm by identifying multiple peaks without needing elevation correction is introduced. This innovative approach significantly enhances the precision of equivalent water level measurements for ice-covered lakes. The study retrieves and compares the water level data of nine North American lakes covered by ice from 2016–2019 using the dual-threshold and the SAMOSA-3 algorithm with in situ data. For Lake Athabasca, Cedar Lake, Great Slave Lake, Lake Winnipeg, and Lake Erie, the root mean square error (RMSE) of SAMOSA-3 is 39.58 cm, 46.18 cm, 45.75 cm, 42.64 cm, and 6.89 cm, respectively. However, the dual-threshold algorithm achieves an RMSE of 6.75 cm, 9.47 cm, 5.90 cm, 7.67 cm, and 5.01 cm, respectively, representing a decrease of 75%, 79%, 87%, 82%, and 27%, respectively, compared to SAMOSA-3. The dual-threshold algorithm can accurately estimate water levels in ice-covered lakes during winter. It offers a promising prospect for achieving long-term, continuous, and high-precision water level measurements for middle- and high-latitude lakes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Radar Sensors)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographical distribution of lakes and hydrological stations in the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Judgment of Lake Ice using Backscattering Coefficient and Brightness Temperature Detection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Setinel-3 SAR waveform data from different dates on Great Slave Lake. The fringe associated with the single backscattering of the radar echoes due to the open water is visible (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>). The fringe associated with the double backscattering of the radar echoes due to the ice is visible (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Several waveforms from Sentinel-3 SAR mode: (<b>a</b>) waveforms with peaks appearing too late, (<b>b</b>) waveforms with peaks appearing too early, (<b>c</b>) waveforms generated by open water, (<b>d</b>) double-peaked waveforms generated by lake ice, (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) multi-peaked waveforms caused by lake ice, (<b>g</b>) Typical bimodal waveform (To highlight the leading edge power variation, only bin values between 20 and 80 power are shown).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The flowchart of the double threshold algorithm and the red part is the improvement compared to the original algorithm (The 3σ guideline refers to the elimination of roughness using three times the median error).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of ground tracks and water levels across Great Slave Lake on 27 September 2017 and 13 March 2018. (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) Sentinel-3 ground track; (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) Water level comparison. The red triangle is the water level station, and the strip is the ground track.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of the water level measured using the retracker in Great Slave Lake from 2016 to 2019 with the hydrological station and the correlation between the water level obtained using the retracker and the in situ gauge water level. (<b>a</b>) Comparison of estimated water levels for each retrackers, (<b>b</b>) OCOG, (<b>c</b>) ice sheet, (<b>d</b>) SAMOSA-3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Time series variation of backscatter coefficient and brightness temperature during 2016–2019. (<b>a</b>) Great Slave Lake, (<b>b</b>) Cedar Lake, (<b>c</b>) Lake Huron, (<b>d</b>) Lake Erie. The gray background shading represents the presence of lake ice.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Consistency of backscattering coefficient and changes in brightness temperature and water level deviation in Great Slave Lake from 2016 to 2017. (<b>a</b>) Time series of brightness temperature and backscatter coefficient, The four line segments (I, II, III and IV) in the picture correspond to the four stages of icing. (<b>b</b>) water level estimated using the corresponding time retrospective performance analysis of the dual-threshold algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparing the water level obtained using the dual-threshold algorithm and the measured water level obtained using the SAMOSA-3 retracker. (<b>a</b>) Great Slave Lak, (<b>b</b>) Cedar Lake, (<b>c</b>) Lake Erie, (<b>d</b>) Lake Huron.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Comparison of water level time series obtained using dual-threshold algorithm and SAMOSA-3 retracker with in situ water level measurements.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 4444 KiB  
Article
Signal Processing and Waveform Re-Tracking for SAR Altimeters on High Mobility Platforms with Vertical Movement and Antenna Mis-Pointing
by Qiankai Wang, Wen Jing, Xiang Liu, Bo Huang and Ge Jiang
Sensors 2023, 23(22), 9266; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23229266 - 18 Nov 2023
Viewed by 1390
Abstract
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) altimeters can achieve higher spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than conventional altimeters by Doppler beam sharpening or focused SAR imaging methods. To improve the estimation accuracy of waveform re-tracking, several average echo power models for SAR altimetry have [...] Read more.
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) altimeters can achieve higher spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than conventional altimeters by Doppler beam sharpening or focused SAR imaging methods. To improve the estimation accuracy of waveform re-tracking, several average echo power models for SAR altimetry have been proposed in previous works. However, these models were mainly proposed for satellite altimeters and are not applicable to high-mobility platforms such as aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and missiles, which may have a large antenna mis-pointing angle and significant vertical movement. In this paper, we propose a novel semi-analytical waveform model and signal processing method for SAR altimeters with vertical movement and large antenna mis-pointing angles. A new semi-analytical expression that can be numerically computed for the flat pulse response (FSIR) is proposed. The 2D delay–Doppler map is then obtained by numerical computation of the convolution between the proposed analytical function, the probability density function, and the time/frequency point target response of the radar. A novel delay compensation method based on sinc interpolation for SAR altimeters with vertical movement is proposed to obtain the multilook echo, which can optimally handle non-integer delays and maintain signal frequency characteristics. In addition, a height estimation method based on least squares (LS) estimation is proposed. The LS estimator does not have an analytical solution, and requires iterative solving through gradient descent. We evaluate the performance of the proposed estimation strategy using simulated data for typical airborne scenarios. When the mis-pointing angles are within 10 degrees, the normalized quadratic error (NQE) of the proposed model is less than 10−10 and the RMSE of τ obtained by the re-tracking method fitted by the proposed model is less than 0.2 m, which indicates the high applicability of the model and accuracy of the re-tracking method. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Remote Sensors)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Delay–Doppler mapping. Each delay–Doppler bin is associated with two delay–Doppler cells on the surface.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Circles of propagation and Doppler beams in SAR altimetry.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Effect of the flight path angle on the DDM: (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>; (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>6</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>; (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>12</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>; (<b>d</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>18</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, SWH = 2 m, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Effect of flight path angle on (<b>a</b>) the multilook echoes and (<b>b</b>) the normalized multilook echoes (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, SWH = 2 m, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Antenna gain with different mis-pointing angles: (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <mover accent="true"> <mi>ϕ</mi> <mo stretchy="false">^</mo> </mover> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>; (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <mover accent="true"> <mi>ϕ</mi> <mo stretchy="false">^</mo> </mover> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>; (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>20</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <mover accent="true"> <mi>ϕ</mi> <mo stretchy="false">^</mo> </mover> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>; (<b>d</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>20</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <mover accent="true"> <mi>ϕ</mi> <mo stretchy="false">^</mo> </mover> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>90</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Effect of <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> on (<b>a</b>) the multilook echoes and (<b>b</b>) the normalized multilook echoes (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, SWH = 2 m, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Effect of <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> on (<b>a</b>) the multilook echoes and (<b>b</b>) the normalized multilook echoes (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, SWH = 2 m, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Flowchart of re-tracking algorithm implementation step.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Overallerror versus <span class="html-italic">m</span> for different <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math>, showing the global NQE (continuous line) and NQE of echo maximum (crossed line) for <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>6</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (in red), <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>12</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (in green), and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>18</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (in blue).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Overall error versus <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> when <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>4</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, SWH = 2 m, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of multilooked power waveforms in typical airborne scenarios: (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo>=</mo> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>0</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo form="prefix">deg</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo>=</mo> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mn>18</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>18</mn> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo form="prefix">deg</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of multilooked power waveforms in typical airborne scenarios: (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo>=</mo> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mn>10</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo form="prefix">deg</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mi>μ</mi> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo>=</mo> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mrow> <mn>0</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </mfenced> <mo form="prefix">deg</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>RMSE of (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) SWH versus SWH in the absence of mis-pointing for the G-PRA and PRA algorithms (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mn>0</mn> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mn>0</mn> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>RMSE of (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) SWH versus <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> for the G-PRA and PRA algorithms (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, SWH = 2 m, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mn>0</mn> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>RMSE of (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) SWH versus <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> for G-PRA and PRA algorithms (Pu = 1, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>τ</mi> </semantics></math> = 30 gates, SWH = 2 m, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>ψ</mi> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>l</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <msup> <mn>0</mn> <mn>0</mn> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 13570 KiB  
Article
Assessment of Wave Power Density Using Sea State Climate Change Initiative Database in the French Façade
by Sonia Ponce de León, Marco Restano and Jérôme Benveniste
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(10), 1970; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11101970 - 11 Oct 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2240
Abstract
This study considers assessing the wave energy potential in the French façade. The objective is to investigate the validity of satellite altimetry-based estimates of wave renewable energy potential using the homogenized multi-mission altimeter data made available by the European Space Agency Sea State [...] Read more.
This study considers assessing the wave energy potential in the French façade. The objective is to investigate the validity of satellite altimetry-based estimates of wave renewable energy potential using the homogenized multi-mission altimeter data made available by the European Space Agency Sea State Climate Change Initiative (Sea_State_cci). The empirical model of Gommenginger et al. (2003) is adopted to calculate the wave period, which is required to estimate the wave power density from both the radar altimeter’s significant wave height and backscatter coefficient. The study comprises 26 years of data, from January 1992 to December 2018. In the winter season, the wave resource is abundant and higher than in other seasons. On average, the highest value is about 99,000 W/m offshore. In the coastal zone, the wave power density is also relatively high, with values of about 60,000 W/m in the North and South regions of the French Atlantic coast. The seasonal spatial distribution of the wave power density is presented to identify potential sites of interest for the development of the marine renewable energy sector and to make renewable energy supply more resilient. The analysis reveals large inter-annual and interseasonal variability in the wave resource in the French façade in the past 26 years. The study shows the feasibility of satellite altimetry-based assessments of wave renewable energy potential as a promising and powerful tool. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Oceanography)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area. Bathymetry (colormap, in meters), wave buoys (red circles), and locations where the wave power density is estimated (1–9, blue stars).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Scatter plots for the significant wave height (Hs) (<b>a</b>) and the wave power density (<b>b</b>) for coastal buoy 64.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Mean wave power density map (W/m) for 1992–2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Along-track mean wave power density map (kW/m) for 1992–2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean wave power density map (W/m) for 1992–2018. Zoom of the coastal section.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Seasonal distribution of mean wave power density (W/m) for 1992–2018. Summer (<b>a</b>), autumn (<b>b</b>), winter (<b>c</b>), and spring (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Monthly mean wave power density (W/m) maps over 26 years (1992–2018).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Monthly wave power density charts over 26 years (1992–2018). January (<b>a</b>), February (<b>b</b>), March (<b>c</b>), April (<b>d</b>), May (<b>e</b>), June (<b>f</b>), July (<b>g</b>), August (<b>h</b>), September (<b>i</b>), October (<b>j</b>), November (<b>k</b>), December (<b>l</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Local correlation between wind and waves estimated from Sea State_cci data at the nine chosen locations (<a href="#jmse-11-01970-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>) for 1992–2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Seasonal variability indices estimated from the Sea State_cci data at the nine chosen locations (<a href="#jmse-11-01970-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>) for 1992–2018. (<b>a</b>) wind, (<b>b</b>) waves.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Wave power variability indices: coefficient of variation (COV) (<b>a</b>), seasonal variability index (SVI) (<b>b</b>), monthly Variability index (MVI) (<b>c</b>), and annual variability index (AVI) (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Scheme 1
<p>Processing steps to obtain the wave power estimates. * The estimation of Te and Pwave can also be made for a specific site by estimating Hs and σ<sup>0</sup> for the specific site and using the regression coefficients “a” and “b” from the nearest buoy (or by interpolating “a” and “b” from several buoys).</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 12061 KiB  
Article
Coastal Waveform Retracking for Synthetic Aperture Altimeters Using a Multiple Optimization Parabolic Cylinder Algorithm
by Jincheng Zheng, Xi-Yu Xu, Ying Xu and Chang Guo
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(19), 4665; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15194665 - 23 Sep 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1387
Abstract
The importance of monitoring sea level in coastal zones becomes more and more obvious in the era of global climate change, because, in coastal zones, although satellite altimetry is an ideal tool in measuring sea level over open ocean, but its accuracy often [...] Read more.
The importance of monitoring sea level in coastal zones becomes more and more obvious in the era of global climate change, because, in coastal zones, although satellite altimetry is an ideal tool in measuring sea level over open ocean, but its accuracy often decreases significantly at coast due to land contamination. Although the accuracy of waveform processing algorithms for synthetic aperture altimeters has been improved in the last decade, the computational speed is still not fast enough to meet the requirements of real-time processing, and the accuracy cannot meet the needs of nearshore areas within 1 km from the coast. To improve the efficiency and accuracy in the coastal zone, this study proposed an innovative waveform retracking scheme for the coastal zone based on a multiple optimization parabolic cylinder algorithm (MOPCA) integrated with machine learning algorithms such as recurrent neural network and Bayesian estimation. The algorithm was validated using 153-pass repeat cycle data from Sentinel-6 over Qianliyan Island and Hong Kong–Wanshan Archipelago. The computational speed of the proposed algorithm was four to five times faster than the current operational synthetic aperture radar (SAR) retracking algorithm, and its accuracy within 0–20 km from the island was comparable to the most popular SAMOSA+ algorithm, better than the official data product provided by Sentinel-6. Especially, the proposed algorithm demonstrates remarkable stability in the sense of proceeding speed. It maintains consistent performance, even when dealing with intricate wave patterns within a proximity of 1 km from the coast. The results showed that the proposed scheme greatly improved the quality of coastal altimetry waveform retracking. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Pulse signal transmission methods for the limited pulse radar altimeter (LRM) and synthetic aperture radar altimeter (SAR).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Two-dimensional cue diagram of echo waveform 12 km offshore of Sentinel-6: (<b>a</b>) SAR and (<b>b</b>) LRM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Three-dimensional schematic diagram of the echo waveform 0~12 km offshore of Sentinel-6: (<b>a</b>) SAR and (<b>b</b>) LRM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic diagram of pulse-limited radar altimeter and synthetic aperture radar altimeter footprints.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Parabolic cylinder model and derivatives (normalized).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>(</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">z</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> lookup table visualization graph with a resolution of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mn>1</mn> <mo> </mo> <mo>×</mo> <mo> </mo> <msup> <mn>10</mn> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>4</mn> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> power. The blue curve is the value of a = 0.5, and the red curve is the value of a = −0.5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Effect diagram of SAR echo wave shape simulated by parabolic cylinder (the blue line represents the original SAR waveform data, and the red line depicts the results after retracking fitting using the parabolic cylinder model).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The impact of SWH and off-nadir angle on the shape of the backscattering waveform: (<b>a</b>) shows the effect of SWH on the backscattering waveform and (<b>b</b>) shows the effect of off-nadir angle on the backscattering waveform.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Results of grouped tests (groups one to five, each had two thousand separate test waveforms): (<b>a</b>) time required by the two parabolic cylinder algorithms for every 2000 waveforms and (<b>b</b>) proportional time required by each algorithm for processing 2000 waveforms out of the total.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Flowchart of the nearshore parabolic cylinder algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>A schematic diagram of a simple RNN algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Figure depicting RNN classification algorithms: (<b>a</b>) conceptual diagram of the n-to-n RNN model structure and (<b>b</b>) schematic diagram of an RNN algorithm designed for echo classification.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Schematic diagram of RNN training results: (<b>a</b>) graph showing the change in loss function with iteration and (<b>b</b>) graph showing the change in accuracy of the training and test sets with iteration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The fitting results of waveform data: (<b>a</b>) shows the fitting using single retracking method for unpolluted echo waveform and (<b>b</b>) shows the fitting using two-step retracking method for severely polluted cone-shaped waveform.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Schematic diagram of Sentinel-6 153 pass crossing the HK–Wanshan Archipelago (area (<b>A</b>)) and Qianliyan Island (area (<b>B</b>)).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Schematic diagrams of sample echoes in the study area: (<b>a</b>) waveform schematic of 153 pass crossing the HK–Wanshan Archipelago and (<b>b</b>) waveform schematic of 153 pass crossing Qianliyan Island.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>A processing time graph depicting the variation in six different algorithms with respect to the offshore distance.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>A comparison chart of echo processing times for six algorithms with an interval of five kilometers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Time series (days) of the difference between various algorithms and the results from the nearest tidal gauge station are shown for distances from 10–20 km (<b>top</b>), 5–10 km (<b>middle</b>), and 0–5 km (<b>bottom</b>) to the coast.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19 Cont.
<p>Time series (days) of the difference between various algorithms and the results from the nearest tidal gauge station are shown for distances from 10–20 km (<b>top</b>), 5–10 km (<b>middle</b>), and 0–5 km (<b>bottom</b>) to the coast.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Plots illustrating the average correlation and RMSE time series between the different algorithms and the tidal gauge station sea level at various distances, as well as the proportion of correlation and RMSE within each interval. (<b>a</b>) Average correlation. (<b>b</b>) Average RMSE. (<b>c</b>) Proportion of correlation distribution within each interval. (<b>d</b>) Proportion of RMSE distribution within each interval.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop