ebooks logo journals logo reference works logo abstract databases logo
bullet  SIGN IN Register | Why Register? | Got a Voucher? alerts   marked lists   shopping cart 

informaworld

HOME   |   SEARCH   |   BROWSE
    Issues List       Latest Issue       Forthcoming Articles       Volume 27 Issue 12       Subscribe       Article       References       Related articles      
<< firstfirst   < prevprev   Table of contentstoc   next >next   last >>last
Publisher Logo Publication Cover
Search within this journal

Comparison of methods for melt detection over Greenland using active and passive microwave measurements 

Authors: Ivan S. Ashcraft a; David G. Long a
Affiliation:   a Brigham Young University, Microwave Earth Remote Sensing Laboratory,
DOI: 10.1080/01431160500534465
Publication Frequency: 24 issues per year
Published in: journal International Journal of Remote Sensing, Volume 27, Issue 12 June 2006 , pages 2469 - 2488
Formats available: HTML (English) : PDF (English)
Also incorporating: Remote Sensing Reviews
Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions


Abstract

Microwave measurements have been used in various studies to detect melt based on their sensitivity to liquid water present in snow. To contrast different melt detection methods used with different sensors, six different melt detection method/sensor combinations are compared using data for the summer of 2000. The sensors include the Special Spectral Microwave Imager (SSM/I), SeaWinds on QuikSCAT (QSCAT), and the European Remote Sensing (ERS) Advanced Microwave Instrument (AMI) in scatterometer mode. Existing melt detection methods are compared with melt detection based on a simple physical model. The model relates the moisture content and depth of a surface melt layer of wet snow to a single channel melt detection threshold. The model can be applied to both active and passive sensors and improves the consistency between brightness temperature (Tb ) and normalized radar backscatter (σ°) based detection of melt. Model-based melt estimates from different sensors are highly correlated and do not exhibit the unnatural phenomenon observed with previous methods. Relative merits and limitations of the various methods are discussed.
view references (15)
Bookmark with:
  • CiteULike
  • Del.icio.us
  • BibSonomy
  • Connotea
  • More bookmarks
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Accessibility | RSS
FAQs in: English . Français . Español . 中文(简体和繁體)
© 2010 Informa plc