MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017789027 · doi:10.1029/2002jd002353

Trends and uncertainties in thermal calibration of AVHRR radiometers onboard NOAA‐9 to NOAA‐16

2002· article· en· W2017789027 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingRadiometerAdvanced very-high-resolution radiometerEnvironmental scienceRadianceCalibrationSatelliteRadiometryRadiosondeMeteorologyRadiometric calibrationPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite measurements from the infrared (IR) channels of the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)/NOAA have been used to derive many important atmospheric, cloud, and surface parameters for weather prediction, climate modelling, and a variety of environmental studies. Calibration accuracy of the satellite data directly affects accuracies of the derived parameters. So far, very limited attention has been given to the calibration uncertainties of the IR channels. In this study, we analyzed the calibration data of AVHRR radiometers onboard polar orbiting satellites NOAA‐9 to NOAA‐16. We utilized Global Area Coverage (GAC) data, approximately one orbit per month throughout the lifetime of the instruments, available from the NOAA Satellite Active Archive (SAA). AVHRR IR channels 3B, 4, and 5 are calibrated in‐flight. Calibration coefficients are derived from measurements of radiance emitted from an internal calibration target (ICT) and deep‐space (SP). The overall budget of uncertainties has been evaluated using an in‐flight calibration system that includes four thermal platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) to monitor the ICT temperature. The measurement noise (NEΔT) was found to vary from 0.03 K to 0.3 K at 300 K depending on the channel and radiometer, and it increases significantly as temperature decreases. Systematic degradation of the radiometric sensitivity of the IR detectors was observed during the lifetime of a radiometer, although the annual rate of degradation is rather small (typically below 1% per year). A significant correlation between the calibration gain and temperature of a radiometer is often observed. The degradation of a sensor's radiometric sensitivity reduces the radiometric resolution of the AVHRR measurements and expands the upper limit of the measured brightness temperature. PRT measurements are subject to significant orbital variation (up to 7 K) and inconsistency for some AVHRR radiometers. The inconsistency was especially large for the AVHRR onboard NOAA‐12 (up to 4 K) and NOAA‐14 (up to 3 K), but it is less than 0.5 K for NOAA‐15 and ‐16. The inconsistency may signify the presence of a thermal gradient across the ICT. Some systematic differences between PRT measurements may also indicate inaccurate characterization of the PRT sensors, for example for AVHRR/NOAA‐11 and ‐14. The impact of the varying thermal state of the AVHRR environment on the accuracy of AVHRR in‐flight thermal calibration was assessed. We found this impact to be significant (up to 0.5 K and more), and proposed a physical model to explain it. We recommend this model for AVHRR operational in‐flight calibration, especially during solar radiative contamination events. Estimates of the PRT thermal response time constant were derived and found to vary between 0.5 and 1.5 min among AVHRR radiometers. Overall, we found somewhat higher uncertainties in AVHRR thermal measurements than were assumed previously.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it