×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
Mesures physiques et signatures en télédétection

~1 1 1 r
8 9 10 11
jre (Degree C)
the brightness
field and those
;ode for ATSR,
images were acquired in the morning (about 10h30) and AVHRR in the afternoon (about 14h30). The
atmospheric condition was relatively stable in the morning but changed very rapidly in the afternoon in the test
site area during the experimental campaign.
Figure 4 shows also that the two ground level brightness temperatures estimated respectively from the 11 pm and
12 pm channels for the same target are different. This spectral difference is highly correlated to the residual error
of the average of the two estimated temperatures compared with the field measurement: the more important is the
spectral difference, the larger is the error. The positive difference between the ground level brightness
temperature estimated by using 11 pm measurement and that estimated by using the 12 pm measurement
indicates an under-estimation of the real ground level brightness temperature. The negative difference indicates
an over-estimation of the real ground level brightness temperature. This analysis can be used to check the
representativeness of used atmospheric profiles. But we must note out that the comparison of Split Window
results with Lowtran corrections shows that a well checked Split-Window method can provide a result as good as
that obtained by using a special coincident radiosounding.
For TM images, the two days results obtained with special coincident radiosoundings and standard
radiosoundings show that the estimated brightness temperatures are cooler than the field measurements. The
problem of the quality of radiosounding can not explain this phenomena: the coincident radiosounding for ATSR
on the 27 July has shown its accuracy and the similar results obtained with standard radiosoundings exclude the
rapid changes of atmospheric conditions. The two possible explanations are due to errors in the absolute
calibration coefficients used for the calculation of the brightness temperature at the satellite level and the
uncertainty on the input spectral response of TM 6 sensor.
4.3 Evaluation of ground level brightness temperatures estimated by new method
The comparison of different Split-Window methods has shown that two of them can be considered as the best
compared with the field measurements: RAL93 and Li93. But from the zoomed graph of Figure 5, we can see
that both of the two methods produce up to about 1.5 °C errors. This is because that Split-Window methods are
accurate only when the atmospheric conditions corresponding to the image acquired are not very far from the
average atmospheric conditions. The results obtained by the proposed new method (Figure 5) show that
significant improvement are achieved compared to the best Split-Window methods: the largest difference
between the estimated temperatures and the field measurements is reduced from 1.5°C to 0.5°C. We must note
that the targets considered in our studies have negligible spectral difference on emissivity. In other cases, spectral
variation of emissivity in the two considered channels will have to be taken into account.
Figure 5 Differences between the brightness temperatures measured in the field and those estimated by the new
method compared with the two best Split-Window methods
799