"Clarifications on the “Comparison Between SMOS, VUA, ASCAT, and ECMWF Soil Moisture Products Over Four Watersheds in U.S.

W. Wagner; L Brocca; V. Naeimi; R. Reichle; C. Draper; R.A.M. de Jeu; D. Ryu; S. Chun-Hsu; A. Western; J.C. Calvet; Y.H. Kerr; D.J. Leroux; M. Drusch; T.J. Jackson; S. Hahn; W. Dorigo; C. Paulik

doi:10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172

"Clarifications on the “Comparison Between SMOS, VUA, ASCAT, and ECMWF Soil Moisture Products Over Four Watersheds in U.S.

W. Wagner, L Brocca, V. Naeimi, R. Reichle, C. Draper, R.A.M. de Jeu, D. Ryu, S. Chun-Hsu, A. Western, J.C. Calvet, Y.H. Kerr, D.J. Leroux, M. Drusch, T.J. Jackson, S. Hahn, W. Dorigo, C. Paulik

Earth and Climate

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

In a recent paper, Leroux compared three satellite soil moisture data sets (SMOS, AMSR-E, and ASCAT) and ECMWF forecast soil moisture data to in situ measurements over four watersheds located in the United States. Their conclusions stated that SMOS soil moisture retrievals represent "an improvement [in RMSE] by a factor of 2-3 compared with the other products" and that the ASCAT soil moisture data are "very noisy and unstable." In this clarification, the analysis of Leroux is repeated using a newer version of the ASCAT data and additional metrics are provided. It is shown that the ASCAT retrievals are skillful, although they show some unexpected behavior during summer for two of the watersheds. It is also noted that the improvement of SMOS by a factor of 2-3 mentioned by Leroux is driven by differences in bias and only applies relative to AMSR-E and the ECWMF data in the now obsolete version investigated by Leroux © 2013 IEEE.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1901-1906
Journal	IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Volume	52
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172
Publication status	Published - 2014

Access to Document

10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

Wagner, W., Brocca, L., Naeimi, V., Reichle, R., Draper, C., de Jeu, R. A. M., Ryu, D., Chun-Hsu, S., Western, A., Calvet, J. C., Kerr, Y. H., Leroux, D. J., Drusch, M., Jackson, T. J., Hahn, S., Dorigo, W., & Paulik, C. (2014). "Clarifications on the “Comparison Between SMOS, VUA, ASCAT, and ECMWF Soil Moisture Products Over Four Watersheds in U.S. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52(3), 1901-1906. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172

@article{721acd4d5f53406daf6bcebced931893,

title = "{"}Clarifications on the “Comparison Between SMOS, VUA, ASCAT, and ECMWF Soil Moisture Products Over Four Watersheds in U.S.",

abstract = "In a recent paper, Leroux compared three satellite soil moisture data sets (SMOS, AMSR-E, and ASCAT) and ECMWF forecast soil moisture data to in situ measurements over four watersheds located in the United States. Their conclusions stated that SMOS soil moisture retrievals represent {"}an improvement [in RMSE] by a factor of 2-3 compared with the other products{"} and that the ASCAT soil moisture data are {"}very noisy and unstable.{"} In this clarification, the analysis of Leroux is repeated using a newer version of the ASCAT data and additional metrics are provided. It is shown that the ASCAT retrievals are skillful, although they show some unexpected behavior during summer for two of the watersheds. It is also noted that the improvement of SMOS by a factor of 2-3 mentioned by Leroux is driven by differences in bias and only applies relative to AMSR-E and the ECWMF data in the now obsolete version investigated by Leroux {\textcopyright} 2013 IEEE.",

author = "W. Wagner and L Brocca and V. Naeimi and R. Reichle and C. Draper and {de Jeu}, R.A.M. and D. Ryu and S. Chun-Hsu and A. Western and J.C. Calvet and Y.H. Kerr and D.J. Leroux and M. Drusch and T.J. Jackson and S. Hahn and W. Dorigo and C. Paulik",

year = "2014",

doi = "10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172",

language = "English",

volume = "52",

pages = "1901--1906",

journal = "IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing",

issn = "0196-2892",

publisher = "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.",

number = "3",

}

Wagner, W, Brocca, L, Naeimi, V, Reichle, R, Draper, C, de Jeu, RAM, Ryu, D, Chun-Hsu, S, Western, A, Calvet, JC, Kerr, YH, Leroux, DJ, Drusch, M, Jackson, TJ, Hahn, S, Dorigo, W & Paulik, C 2014, '"Clarifications on the “Comparison Between SMOS, VUA, ASCAT, and ECMWF Soil Moisture Products Over Four Watersheds in U.S.', IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1901-1906. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Clarifications on the “Comparison Between SMOS, VUA, ASCAT, and ECMWF Soil Moisture Products Over Four Watersheds in U.S.

AU - Wagner, W.

AU - Brocca, L

AU - Naeimi, V.

AU - Reichle, R.

AU - Draper, C.

AU - de Jeu, R.A.M.

AU - Ryu, D.

AU - Chun-Hsu, S.

AU - Western, A.

AU - Calvet, J.C.

AU - Kerr, Y.H.

AU - Leroux, D.J.

AU - Drusch, M.

AU - Jackson, T.J.

AU - Hahn, S.

AU - Dorigo, W.

AU - Paulik, C.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - In a recent paper, Leroux compared three satellite soil moisture data sets (SMOS, AMSR-E, and ASCAT) and ECMWF forecast soil moisture data to in situ measurements over four watersheds located in the United States. Their conclusions stated that SMOS soil moisture retrievals represent "an improvement [in RMSE] by a factor of 2-3 compared with the other products" and that the ASCAT soil moisture data are "very noisy and unstable." In this clarification, the analysis of Leroux is repeated using a newer version of the ASCAT data and additional metrics are provided. It is shown that the ASCAT retrievals are skillful, although they show some unexpected behavior during summer for two of the watersheds. It is also noted that the improvement of SMOS by a factor of 2-3 mentioned by Leroux is driven by differences in bias and only applies relative to AMSR-E and the ECWMF data in the now obsolete version investigated by Leroux © 2013 IEEE.

AB - In a recent paper, Leroux compared three satellite soil moisture data sets (SMOS, AMSR-E, and ASCAT) and ECMWF forecast soil moisture data to in situ measurements over four watersheds located in the United States. Their conclusions stated that SMOS soil moisture retrievals represent "an improvement [in RMSE] by a factor of 2-3 compared with the other products" and that the ASCAT soil moisture data are "very noisy and unstable." In this clarification, the analysis of Leroux is repeated using a newer version of the ASCAT data and additional metrics are provided. It is shown that the ASCAT retrievals are skillful, although they show some unexpected behavior during summer for two of the watersheds. It is also noted that the improvement of SMOS by a factor of 2-3 mentioned by Leroux is driven by differences in bias and only applies relative to AMSR-E and the ECWMF data in the now obsolete version investigated by Leroux © 2013 IEEE.

U2 - 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172

DO - 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2282172

M3 - Article

SN - 0196-2892

VL - 52

SP - 1901

EP - 1906

JO - IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

JF - IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

IS - 3

ER -

"Clarifications on the “Comparison Between SMOS, VUA, ASCAT, and ECMWF Soil Moisture Products Over Four Watersheds in U.S.

Abstract

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Fingerprint

Cite this