Abstract

A recent paper by Mishchenko et al. compares near-coincident MISR, MODIS, and AERONET aerosol optical depth (AOD), and gives a much less favorable impression of the utility of the satellite products than that presented by the instrument teams and other groups. We trace the reasons for the differing pictures to whether known and previously documented limitations of the products are taken into account in the assessments. Specifically, the analysis approaches differ primarily in (1) the treatment of outliers, (2) the application of absolute vs. relative criteria for testing agreement, and (3) the ways in which seasonally varying spatial distributions of coincident retrievals are taken into account. Mishchenko et al. also do not distinguish between observational sampling differences and retrieval algorithm error. We assess the implications of the different analysis approaches, and cite examples demonstrating how the MISR and MODIS aerosol products have been applied successfully to a range of scientific investigations.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.