Direct Comparison and Triple Collocation: Which Is More Reliable in the Validation of Coarse‐Scale Satellite Surface Albedo Products

Abstract

AbstractA rigorous and reliable validation is the prerequisite and basis to properly understand the accuracy of satellite surface albedo products. However, the representativeness error of point scale in situ measurements, which mainly results from the spatial mismatch between in situ and satellite measurements as well as the surface heterogeneities, generally hinders an effective validation of satellite surface albedo products based on the conventional direct comparison method. Triple collocation technique has been recognized as a powerful tool to estimate the errors of satellite products without requiring the truth. Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of both the direct comparison and extended triple collocation (ETC) methods in tackling with the representativeness error of in situ measurements and characterizing the performances of satellite surface albedo products (MCD43A3 [V006], GLASS, and NPP VIIRS albedos) given whether the in situ‐based pixel‐scale albedo was available or not. The ETC method is shown to be advantageous over the direct comparison based on single “point” in situ measurements, because it is less affected by representativeness errors. However, it shall not substitute for the direct comparison method based on in situ‐based pixel‐scale albedo measurements, because its effectiveness in solving representativeness errors and estimating product errors is very limited and dependent on the choice of the data in the triplets. Furthermore, the ETC technique cannot be used to estimate the true physical errors of satellite surface albedo products.