Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Estimates of the relative humidity near the ground are frequently requested by
scientific communities concerned about weather forecasting, disease prediction,
and agriculture. To face the dearth of meteorological observations provided by
synoptic networks, remote sensing measurements are particularly useful,
specifically because they can provide coherent information at a regional
representative scale. The present investigation gives an update on the potential
for using satellite data to estimate the near-surface relative humidity. The
IMAGER sensor on board the Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellite (GOES) is used to obtain the hourly infrared datasets. In addition,
data from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) flown on
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sun-synchronous satellite series is used to calculate the daily normalized difference vegetation
index (NDVI). Estimates of the relative humidity are assessed using various
variables like the surface temperature, NDVI, the precipitable water, the digital
elevation model, the date and local time. The study approach combines
empirically these variables into third-order polynomial multiple regressions with
stepwise functions. The data are split in two parts: the algorithm development
dataset and the validation dataset. The estimation model is developed by a
stepwise function, which selects independent variables and decides corresponding
coefficients. The model validity is further assessed by employing a comparison
with the results obtained from the model output using a validation dataset. The
accuracy achieved using the validation dataset is in a good agreement with
development dataset accuracies. The relative humidity accuracy derived from the
present method is within 10% compared to field measurements. The largest
discrepancies between model and measurements were observed over forested
areas. One outcome from this study is that the difference in results between
forested and non-forested targets is enhanced with the topography.
4764
1.
Introduction
4765
The study area is located in the western part of Quebec province in Canada. It is
delimited in longitude by 71.47u and 75.65u west coordinates and in longitude by
45.03u and 49.74u north coordinates. In this region, dominant landscape units
encompass forest and agriculture areas. Adequate datasets were acquired for the
purpose of this study and used for the development and validation of the retrieval
algorithms. The data used for this research work were collected during two periods,
110 June and 110 July 1997, thereby covering the beginning and middle of the
summer growing season. Meteorological data included hourly air temperature (Ta),
dew point temperature (Td), and relative humidity (RH) observations from 41
automatic surface stations. The set of stations belongs to three different regional
networks: (1) Environment Canada, (2) the POMMIER network of MAPAQ
(Ministe`re de Agriculture, des Pecheries et de lAlimentation du Quebec), and (3)
SOPFEU (Societe de Protection des Forets contre le Feu). Environment Canada,
4766
POMMIER, and SOPFEU contain 11, 9, and 21 stations, respectively, in the region
of interest (figure 1). All measuring instruments for three networks are configured
according to Environment Canada and World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) regulations.
The present study also incorporates satellite data from the AVHRR sensor on
board the NOAA-12 and NOAA-14 Sun-synchronous satellites and from the
IMAGER sensor flown on the geosynchronous GOES-8 satellite. All data were
obtained from the Atmospheric Environment Service of Environment Canada. To
remove cloud effects from the signal, we used the five channels of NOAA-12 and
4767
GOES-8
NOAA-12, -14
IMAGER
geosynchronous
<35 788 km
30 min
AVHRR
Sun-synchronous
<833 km
<12 h
Wavelength
(mm)
VIS
IR
IR
IR
IR
0.550.75
3.84.0
6.57.0
10.211.2
11.512.5
Resolution at
nadir (km2)
Wavelength
(mm)
Resolution at
nadir (km2)
1.061.0
4.068.0
4.068.0
4.068.0
4.068.0
VIS
0.580.68
NIR 0.7251.10
IR
3.553.93
IR
10.311.3
IR
11.512.5
1.161.1
1.161.1
1.161.1
1.161.1
1.161.1
4768
The split-window algorithm proposed by Ulivieri et al. (1994) for the AVHRR was
used to retrieve Ts. This combines brightness temperatures in two spectrally adjacent
channels. It is worth outlining that the atmospheric absorption and the surface
emissivity are inherently accounted for in the algorithm. The algorithm reads:
Ts ~T4 z1:8T4 {T5 z481{e{75De
T4 {T5 {a
b
2a
where
a~75:De0 z8:1{e4 {0:15
2b
b~0:05:1{44:De0 {5:1{e4
2c
2d
4769
De~0:01019z0:01344:lnNDVI
NDVI and emissivity are assumed to be constant during the day for any pixel.
However, in rangelands there is an increase in photosynthetic activity, or
greenness, after rainfall. Dew or rainfall event could change somewhat the
emissivity. Therefore, maximum NDVI values composed within a day for all
daytime NDVI images were used in the above emissivity calculation. To match
AVHRR and IMAGER spatial resolutions for the purpose of producing reliable
estimates of Ts and Pw, 16 AVHRR emissivity pixels were averaged and further
integrated into one single pixel. GOES data were available 15 and 45 min after
hourly acquisition. Ts and Pw images at 15 min interval before and after an hourly
acquisition were averaged to provide an hourly database (i.e. 00 h, 01 h, 02 h, ,
23 h).
3.
RH is defined as the ratio of the mixing ratio to the saturation mixing ratio (Hess
1959). Assuming water vapour is an ideal gas, this definition leads to:
RH~ea =e0
5a
ea ~0:06108exp17:27:Td =273:3zTd
5b
e0 ~0:06108exp17:27:Ta =273:3zTa
5c
where
where ea is the vapour pressure of air (kPa), e0 is the saturation vapour pressure
(kPa), Ta is the air temperature (uC) and Td is the dew point temperature (uC).
Therefore, RH is a function of Ta and Td. Although Ta and Td can be estimated from
satellite sensor data, the subsequent calculation of RH has not been performed. The
RH estimation through independent retrievals of Ta and Td may significantly
decrease the accuracy because of the error amplified by double error sources (Ta and
Td estimation procedures). To minimize and avoid these errors, the algorithm
developed in this paper directly estimates RH. This study attempts to provide an
hourly database and to derive an equation that considers both temporal and spatial
information. The algorithm presented here is designed with various input variables
identified using a multiple regression approach.
Too many independent variables (or predictors) may be addressed when various
input variables are used in a multiple regression approach with high-order
polynomial. Therefore, a mean to reduce the number of predictors is strongly
requested. The stepwise function analysis, therefore, was employed for selecting
predictors. Draper and Smith (1981) developed a stepwise multiple regression for a
multivariate dataset. The stepwise polynomial regression function is an alternative
to prediction of mining functions. It is very efficient, even when applied to large
amounts of data. Stepwise multiple regression is also advantageous because model
optimizations can be applied. Such methods discard insignificant variables so that
they have no influence on the prediction model. It is, therefore, an enhanced
4770
(2)
(3)
4771
Figure 2. Architectural design of the method for establishing the estimation model and for
its validation.
(4)
(5)
4.
4.1
Analysis
Physical discussion for input parameter selection
4.1.1 Ta, Td and RH. Dew points indicate the amount of moisture in the air. The
higher the dew points, the higher the moisture content of the air at a given
temperature. A state of saturation exists when the air is holding the maximum
amount of water vapour possible at the existing temperature and pressure. When Td
and Ta are equal, the air is said to be saturated. Td is never greater than the Ta.
Therefore, if the air cools, moisture must be removed from the air and this is
accomplished through condensation. RH can be inferred from dew point values. The
quantity RH is calculated from a known Ta and Td. RH was high (low) when the
difference between Ta and Td was small (large) (figure 3(a)). When Ta and Td are
very close, the air has a high RH (around 16 oclock in figure 3(a)). The opposite is
true when there is a large difference between Ta and Td, which indicates air with
lower RH (around 1 oclock in figure 3(a)). Locations with high RH indicate that the
air is nearly saturated with moisture; clouds and precipitation are therefore quite
possible. Weather conditions at locations with high Td are likely to be uncomfortably humid. If we can accurately estimate Ta and Td, it is easy to obtain RH.
However, as mentioned in the previous section, independent retrievals of Ta and Td
may significantly amplify the error in RH estimation by double error sources from
Ta and Td estimation procedures. Therefore, it is necessary to construct a direct
4772
Figure 3. Relationships between parameters for 2 June 1997: (a) relationship between Ta,
RH, and Td on a daily scale; (b) relationship between Td and Pw; (c) relationship between Ta
and Ts; (d ) relationship between Ta and DEM; (e) (Ts2Ta) variation according to daily
NDVI; and ( f ) diurnal variation of Ta and Ts at LAcadie site.
4773
4774
4.2
24
X
i~1
where RHe is the estimated RH, Fi are output variables combining input variables,
b0 is a constant, and bi is the regression coefficient of the ith independent variable.
The RHe values estimated from equation (8) agreed with measured values; the
regression line slope was 0.998; the intercept was 0.114%; R2 was 0.77; and the SEE
was 10.49%.
Figure 4. Comparison of models detected by stepwise method for R2 and the number of
independent variables. The dotted lines with number labelling indicate the scale for the bar
graph (in grey) of number of variables.
4775
Table 2. Statistics from the stepwise function for the development dataset.
Independent
variable (Fi)
Significance level
Unstandardized
coefficient (bi)
Variation of bi
Standardized
coefficient
Constant
F15x1
F25x1x2x3
F35x1x32
F45x1x3x5
F55x1x3x6
F65x1x4x6
F75x33
F85x22
F95x23
F105x2x3x4
F115x2x3x6
F125x3
F135x32
F145x32x2
F155x32x6
F165x3x4x6
F175x4
F185x42x1
F195x42x2
F205x43
F215x42x6
F225x62x2
F235x62x3
F245x62x4
<0
<0
8.965610204
1.221610207
1.224610223
1.162610207
<0
<0
3.130610212
5.792610213
4.209610203
4.078610205
<0
<0
<0
2.289610204
1.679610210
<0
<0
1.238610208
<0
3.728610212
7.675610205
2.626610207
1.715610213
2101.7560
0.0791
0.0007
0.0001
20.0005
20.0001
0.0076
0.0002
4.5929
25.6415
20.0953
20.0042
0.1149
20.0098
0.0036
0.0001
20.0134
349.7758
20.6921
25.9881
2605.3060
0.4812
0.0019
0.0002
20.0121
5.8740
0.0080
0.0002
1.08610205
4.52610205
2.08610205
0.0010
1.15610205
0.6880
0.8120
0.0330
0.0010
0.0090
0.0004
0.0004
2.75610205
0.0020
20.5920
0.0480
1.0490
37.5700
0.0720
0.0005
4.36610205
0.0020
3.171
0.178
0.784
20.101
21.442
2.633
3.665
1.499
20.938
20.479
20.697
3.543
27.166
0.924
0.982
22.649
10.115
25.148
20.603
29.626
1.352
0.29
1.811
22.179
Input variables: x15Ts (uC), x25NDVI (01), x35local time (decimal), x45Julian day/365 (0
1), x55DEM (km), x65Pw (cm).
In order to analyse the error in more detail, the results for two different land units
were compared, that is forested and non-forested. Better results occur over nonforested land types than over forest land types. SEE and R2 for non-forest were
8.97% and 0.8, compared to values of 11.01% and 0.74 (figure 5) for forest. The
discrepancy is particularly enhanced for measured RH over forest sites, beyond 90%
(figure 5). Statistics for the two land types are listed in table 3. A large difference in
biases for mean, maximum, and minimum values between the two land types was
not achieved. However, better mean deviation (MD) of 2.1% and RMSE of 2.92%
occurred over non-forest than over forest (table 3). These results suggest that using
statistical models adapted to the land types is definitively more appropriate.
However, we found that model accuracy segregated according to the land type (not
shown here) showed no improvement over the single model (equation (8)). The
difference between results over forested and non-forested areas may be explained
from two points of view: canopy top height; topographical variance. The remotely
sensed parameters represent a value at a canopy top height. The canopy top height
of forested (forest canopy height) and non-forested (crop canopy height in this
study) areas is quite different, while the height of RH sensor in the measurement
station is about 1.2 m above ground level. In general, crop canopy is closer to
ground measurement level of RH than forest canopy. In other words, estimation
over crop canopy has a relatively better chance of estimating a parameter at near
surface as compared with estimation over forest canopy. Secondly, topographical
4776
Figure 5. Scatterplot of predictions and measurements for development dataset over forest
and non-forest land types (SEE: standard error estimate).
variability in a pixel could also affect the degree of the estimation because this
provides different aspects on the spatial representativeness of a pixel value. The
reasoning associated with topographical variability causing difference in error over
the two land types is discussed in the next section.
5.
Forest
Non-forest
Total
51.79
52.20
53.24
52.86
52.54
52.54
10.95
12.17
16.24
14.71
10.95
12.17
100.0
93.71
100.0
93.31
100.0
93.71
9.01
11.90
6.91
8.98
7.92
10.48
2060
2223
4283
4777
Table 4. Statistical results for the validation dataset for estimating relative humidity (RH)
over forest and non-forest land types.
For validation dataset
Forest
Non-forest
Total
66.76
66.76
67.13
67.13
66.96
66.96
28.00
26.50
29
28.75
28
26.5
100.0
107.3
8.16
10.54
1296
100.0
101.5
6.91
8.76
1465
100.0
107.3
7.50
9.63
2761
is also to test the extensibility of the algorithm in the seasonal term. The RH
estimation model established with the development dataset was then evaluated using
the validation dataset for the days between 1 and 10 July 1997.
The validation dataset (2726 cloud-free observations) applied to the estimation
model included the same independent variables and coefficients used in the
development step. RHe values estimated for validation show good agreement with
the measured values. The regression slope was 1.0, the intercept was 0.0000154%,
the R2 was 0.74, and SEE was 9.64%. R2 was slightly lower and SEE decreased as
compared to the development results. Results for non-forest and forest showed the
same tendency as the development dataset. Table 4 and the scatterplots in figure 6
show the better estimation over non-forest lands. Maximum estimation values
reached 100% over both land types and MD and RMSE show almost the same
degree as the development dataset (table 4). The best fit is shown in the estimates for
the validation dataset over non-forest (MD56.91% and RMSE58.76%). In the
summer in Quebec, the RH is high at night and low during the day. The absolute
humidity of the air varies quite slowly on a daily basis, and is a function of the
Figure 6. Scatterplot of predictions and measurements for validation dataset over forest and
non-forest land types (SEE: standard error estimate).
4778
Figure 7. Mean RMSE (filled in black) and measured value (filled in white) comparisons
between development and validation datasets.
4779
Table 5. Statistical results for the combined dataset (development and validation) of each
station.
Station
Slope
Intercept
R2
RMSE (%)
Number of
observations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
0.97
1.40
1.16
0.88
1.09
0.73
0.69
1.37
0.98
1.09
1.17
0.80
1.13
1.01
0.99
0.88
0.87
0.84
0.50
0.91
0.94
1.11
1.04
0.96
1.11
1.06
1.09
0.87
1.15
1.09
1.02
0.98
1.04
0.85
0.82
1.07
0.96
1.00
0.95
0.84
0.85
3.14
218.40
29.26
2.09
23.13
17.49
1.54
224.57
4.58
2.09
21.66
7.36
27.60
20.73
20.24
5.94
8.10
8.26
26.71
11.27
6.49
23.83
22.59
0.89
25.37
25.38
27.53
8.44
25.83
26.83
20.65
3.95
21.37
5.69
6.55
24.36
2.53
4.68
21.86
9.95
5.76
0.81
0.79
0.87
0.72
0.85
0.51
0.46
0.82
0.74
0.84
0.79
0.74
0.91
0.88
0.69
0.67
0.76
0.74
0.41
0.73
0.77
0.78
0.83
0.80
0.81
0.88
0.80
0.76
0.91
0.85
0.79
0.85
0.89
0.75
0.75
0.82
0.80
0.80
0.88
0.80
0.66
8.14
16.80
9.96
12.18
8.64
12.49
13.58
14.09
10.79
9.16
14.11
12.18
8.55
8.37
14.03
9.23
8.07
8.85
15.63
12.44
9.12
10.74
8.37
8.26
10.26
7.61
11.47
8.59
8.47
8.13
10.08
9.36
7.73
10.18
10.37
9.28
8.38
10.00
7.83
8.08
11.14
86
206
211
243
93
96
9
93
66
6
77
190
156
180
114
62
82
88
81
98
94
242
239
239
239
227
218
261
237
233
280
200
254
236
234
236
246
212
220
244
216
Overall
1.00
0.07
0.78
10.16
7044
forest land types dominate (grey in figure 8). In order to enquire into more detail the
spatial distribution of RMSE as shown in figure 8, we analyse with DEM by
dividing into two groups: the group of the stations having lower RMSE than 10.16%
(mean); and the group of the stations having higher RMSE than mean. Table 6
shows the relationship between RMSE and environment by comparing two groups.
Group A includes 28 stations with RMSE values lower than the mean. Seventeen
stations with RMSE values exceeding the mean comprise group B. The majority of
4780
Figure 8. Contour map for the spatial distribution of RMSE of measured and estimated
relative humidity. Overlapped image is a simplified land cover map of two classes (forest and
non-forest classes).
group A is non-forest land type; forest land types dominate group B. In addition,
the mean elevation of group B (5248.5 m) is 111.9 m higher than that of group A
(136.6 m). Elevation variability is analysed within a 4 km64 km pixel using a DEM
with 30 m630 m spatial resolution. Elevation variability within a pixel for group B
was four times greater than for group A (table 6). The maximum value for group B is
69.1 m.
The forest-covered zone in the study area is generally distributed over relatively
high mountainous areas where elevation variability within a pixel is high. The
estimation scheme for RH is more suitable for agricultural areas at low elevations
with little intrapixel variability. Nevertheless, RH can be estimated over
4781
Table 6. Comparison of environmental characteristics for stations with RMSEs higher and
lower than the all-station average (10.16%).
Group A, (10.16% RMSE
Number of stations
Elevation (m)
maximum
minimum
mean
24
502.5
13.6
136.6
570.9
37.3
248.5
69.1
0.5
16.0
mountainous forest areas. The results indicate that the proposed RH estimation
algorithm could be a useful tool in instances similar to those studied here.
6.
Concluding remarks
The variable RH has been derived here from remotely sensed data (NOAA/AVHRR
and GOES/IMAGER data) and auxiliary spatial and temporal information. Six
input components (Ts, NDVI, Pw, DEM, LT, and JD) are used in a multiple
regression analysis using a stepwise selection function to estimate relative humidity.
The multiple regression polynomial is third-order to match the best fit of the diurnal
variation of Ta and Ts. The relative humidity estimation produced the following
important results: (1) the estimation scheme expressed spatial and temporal
variation on an hourly scale using only one equation; and (2) the values are
directly estimated without the process that is required in the conventional RH
formula to obtain the Td and Ta (equation (5a)), and RMSE is acceptable.
The model for relative humidity had an overall SEE of about 10%. SEE over
forest and non-forest lands was 11.01% and 8.97%, respectively. The results using
this new algorithm are not compared to previous studies, because there have been no
similar investigations; however, a validation dataset yielded similar SEE over forest
(10.54%) and non-forest (8.76%) areas. The results for validation dataset are shown
to be in close agreement with those for development dataset. RMSE differences
between forest and non-forest arise from differences in elevation and spatial
variability. A slightly better fit occurs for non-forest regions that included an
agricultural area. In other words, the estimation is more accurate when a region had
a biologically and geographically homogeneous surface condition within the pixels.
On the other hand, the pixel values over a heterogeneous region can give a mean
value for a corresponding pixel area, but not a representative value. This error could
be reduced if we use only a Sun-synchronous satellite such as NOAA or Terra (EOS
AM-1) on which there is the AVHRR and Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments, respectively, which have much better
spatial resolution than geostationary satellites. This better spatial resolution can
diminish an overload for the spatial representativeness of a pixel value. However, it
should be noted that the temporal resolution of estimation is decreased to the daily
scale because of the polar orbiting system.
Finally, the present algorithm may contribute to higher resolution mapping of
hydro-meteorological elements, such as evapotranspiration and drought or forest
4782
fire indices. However, the equations probably cannot be generalized for every
situation, because the derived coefficients are valid only for this special case.
Therefore, future studies should include an analysis of long-term data from various
regions, using the same scheme and input components.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by funds from SOPFEU. Satellite data were kindly
provided by Environment Canada. Ground-based data were kindly provided by
SOPFEU, Environment Canada, and the POMMIER network. Digital elevation
model data were provided by Geomatic Canada. Finally, the authors would like to
thank anonymous reviewers of this paper. Their comments and suggestions were
appreciated to improve the paper quality.
References
ACHARYA, P.K., BERK, A., BERNSTEIN, L.S., MATTHEW, M.W., ADLER-GOLDEN, S.M.,
ROBERTSON, D.C., ANDERSON, G.P., CHETWYND, J.H., KNEIZYS, F.X., SHETTLE, E.P.,
ABREU, L.W., GALLERY, W.O., SELBY, J.E.A. and CLOUGH, S.A., 1998, MODTRAN
Users Manual, versions 3.7 and 4.0. Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom AFB,
MA, USA.
AUMANN, H.H., CHAHINE, M.T., GAUTIER, C., GOLDBERG, M.D., KALNAY, E.,
MCMILLIN, L.M., REVERCOMB, H., ROSENKRANZ, P.W., SMITH, W.L.,
STAELIN, D.H., STROW, L.L. and SUSSKIND, J., 2003, AIRS/AMSU/HSB on the
Aqua mission: design, science objectives, data products, and processing systems.
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 41, pp. 253264.
CASELLES, V., DELEGIDO, J., HURTADO, E. and SOBRINO, J.A., 1991, Maximum ET
monitoring over La Mancha, Spain, using NOAA-AVHRR data. Proceedings of the
5th International ColloquiumPhysical Measurements and Signatures in Remote
Sensing, Courchevel, France, 1418 January (CD-ROM from ICP).
CASELLES, V., ARTIGAO, M.M., HURTADO, E., COLL, C. and BRASA, A., 1998, Mapping
actual evapotranspiration by combining Landsat TM and NOAA-AVHRR images:
application to the Barrax area, Albacet, Spain. Remote Sensing of Environment, 63,
pp. 110.
CHOUDHURY, B.J., 1996, Comparison of two models relating precipitable water to surface
humidity using globally distributed radiosonde data over land surfaces. International
Journal of Climatology, 16, pp. 663675.
CHOUDHURY, B., DORMAN, T.J. and HSU, A.Y., 1995, Modeled and observed relations
between the AVHRR split window temperature difference and atmospheric
precipitable water over land surfaces. Remote Sensing of Environment, 51, pp.
281290.
CIHLAR, J., LY, H., LI, Z., CHEN, J., POKRANT, H. and HUANG, F., 1997, Multitemporal,
multichannel AVHRR data sets for land biosphere studiesartifacts and corrections.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 60, pp. 3557.
CRESSWELL, M.P., MORSE, A.P., THOMSON, M.C. and CONNOR, S.J., 1999, Estimating surface
air temperatures, from Meteosat land surface temperatures, using an empirical solar
zenith angle model. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 20, pp. 11251132.
CZAJKOWSKI, K.P., MULHERN, T., GOWARD, S.N., CIHLAR, J., DUBAYAH, R.O. and
PRINCE, S.D., 1997, Biospheric environmental monitoring at BOREAS with
AVHRR observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, pp. 29 65129 662.
DRAPER, N.R. and SMITH, H., 1981, Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd edn (New York:
John Wiley).
GEIGER, R., 1965, The Climate near the Ground (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press).
4783
GOWARD, S.N. and HOPE, A.S., 1989, Evapotranspiration from combined reflected solar and
emitted terrestrial radiation: preliminary FIFE results from AVHRR data. Advances
in Space Research, 7, pp. 165174.
GOWARD, S.N., CRUICKSHANKS, G.C. and HOPE, A.S., 1985, Observed relation between
thermal emissions and reflected spectral reflectance from a complex vegetated
landscape. Remote Sensing of Environment, 18, pp. 137146.
GUTMAN, G., TARPLEY, D. and OHRING, G., 1987, Cloud screening for determination of land
surface characteristics in a reduced resolution satellite data set. International Journal
of Remote Sensing, 8, pp. 859870.
HAN, K.S., VIAU, A.A. and ANCTIL, F., 2004, An analysis of GOES- and NOAA-derived land
surface temperatures estimated over a boreal forest. International Journal of Remote
Sensing, 25, pp. 47614780.
HESS, S.L., 1959, Introduction to Theoretical Meteorology (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston).
HOPE, A.S. and MCDOWELL, T.P., 1992, The relationship between surface temperature and a
spectral vegetation index of a tallgrass prairie: effects of burning and other landscape
controls. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 13, pp. 28492863.
JONES, P.D., 1995, Land surface temperatures: is the network good enough? Climate Change,
31, pp. 545558.
KARL, T.R., DERR, V.E., EASTERLING, D.R., FOLLAND, C.K., HOFMANN, D.J., LEVITUS, S.,
NICHOLLS, N., PARKER, D.E. and WITHEE, G.W., 1995, Critical issues for long-term
climate monitoring. Climate Change, 31, pp. 185221.
KIDWELL, K.B., 1998, NOAA polar orbiter data users guide service. NOAA/National
Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service.
MARTIN, M.E., 1997, Mise au point dun indicateur continental devapotranspiration
apparent pour les regions intertropicales Africaines. The`se de matrise, Universite
Laval. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 46, pp. 285296.
MONTEITH, J.L. and UNSWORTH, M.H., 1990, Principles of Environmental Physics (New York:
Edward Arnold).
NEMANI, R.R. and RUNNING, S.W., 1989, Estimation of regional surface resistance to
evapotranspiration from NDVI and thermal IR AVHRR data. Journal of Applied
Meteorology, 28, pp. 276284.
NEMANI, R.R., PIERCE, L., RUNNING, S.W. and GOWARD, S.N., 1993, Developing satellitederived estimates of soil moisture status. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 32, pp.
548557.
PAQUET, F., VOGT, J.V. and VIAU, A.A., 1997, Regionalisation of air temperatures using
AVHRR derived surface skin temperatures together with terrain and landcover data.
Proceedings of the International Symposium: Geomatics in the Era of Radarsat
(GER97), Poster, Ottawa, 2530 May, CD-ROM.
PERRY, E.M. and MORAN, M.S., 1994, An evaluation of atmospheric corrections of
radiometric surface temperatures for a semiarid rangeland watershed. Water
Resources Research, 30, pp. 12611269.
PRICE, J.C., 1990, Using spatial context in satellite data to infer regional scale
evapotranspiration. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 28, pp.
940948.
PRIHODKO, L. and GOWARD, S.N., 1997, Estimation of air temperature from remotely sensed
surface observations. Remote Sensing of Environment, 60, pp. 335346.
PRINCE, S.D. and GOWARD, S.J., 1995, Global primary production: a remote sensing
approach. Journal of Biogeography, 22, pp. 815835.
PRINCE, S.D., GOETZ, S.J., DUBAYAH, R.O., CZAJKOWSKI, K.P. and THAWLEY, M., 1998,
Inference of surface and air temperature, atmospheric precipitable water and vapor
pressure deficit using Advanced Very High-Resolution Radiometer satellite observation: comparison with field observation. Journal of Hydrology, 212/213, pp. 230249.
4784
REITAN, C.H., 1963, Surface dew point and water vapor aloft. Journal of Applied
Meteorology, 2, pp. 776779.
RICHTER, R., 1990, A fast atmospheric correction algorithm applied to Landsat TM images.
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 11, pp. 159166.
ROSENBERG, N.J., BLAD, B.L. and VERMA, S.B., 1983, Micro-climate: The Biological
Environment (New York: John Wiley).
SAUNDERS, R.W., 1986, An automated scheme for the removal of cloud contamination from
AVHRR radiances over western Europe. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 7,
pp. 867886.
SAUNDERS, R.W. and KRIEBEL, K.T., 1988, An improved method for detecting clear sky and
cloudy radiances from AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 9, pp.
123150.
SHIN, D., POLLARD, J.K. and MULLER, J.P., 1996, Cloud detection from thermal infrared
images using a segmentation technique. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17,
pp. 28452856.
SMITH, R.C.G. and CHOUDHURY, B.J., 1991, Analysis of normalized difference and surface
temperature observations over southeastern Australia. International Journal of
Remote Sensing, 12, pp. 20212044.
SMITH, W.L., 1966, Note on the relationship between total precipitable water and surface dew
point. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 5, pp. 726727.
SOBRINO, J.A., COLL, C. and CASELLES, V., 1991, Atmospheric correction for land surface
temperature using NOAA-11 AVHRR channels 4 and 5. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 38, pp. 1934.
TEILLET, P.M., 1992, An algorithm for the radiometric and atmospheric correction of
AVHRR data in the solar reflective channels. Remote Sensing of Environment, 41, pp.
185195.
ULIVIERI, C., CASTRONOUVO, M.M., FRANCIONI, R. and CARDILLO, A., 1994, A split-window
algorithm for estimating land surface temperature from satellites. Advances in Space
Research, 14(3), pp. 5965.
VIAU, A.A., VOGT, J.V. and PAQUET, F., 1996, Regionalisation and mapping of air
temperature fields using NOAA AVHRR imagery. Actes du 9e Congres de
lAssociation quebecoise de teledetection (AQT): La teledetection au sein de la
geomatique, 30 April3 May 1996, Quebec, Canada, CD-ROM.
valuation de la representativite spatiale
VIAU, A.A., VOGT, J.V. and PAQUET, F., 2000, E
thermique des stations meteorologiques du reseau dAndalousie. International Journal
of Remote Sensing, 21, pp. 30833113.
VOGT, J.V., VIAU, A.A. and PAQUET, F., 1997, Mapping regional air temperature fields using
satellite-derived surface skin temperatures. International Journal of Climatology, 17,
pp. 15591579.
WEINREB, M., JAMIESON, M., FULTON, N., CHEN, Y., JOHNSON, J.X., BREMER, J., SMITH, C.
and BAUCOM, J., 1997, Operational calibration of the imagers and sounders on the
GOES-8 and -9 satellites. NOAA/NESDIS/Office of Systems Development.