DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Derivation of Surface Temperature from KOMPSAT-3A Mid-wave Infrared Data Using a Radiative Transfer Model

  • Kim, Yongseung (National Satellite Operation & Application Center, Korea Aerospace Research Institute)
  • Received : 2022.06.27
  • Accepted : 2022.07.30
  • Published : 2022.08.31

Abstract

An attempt to derive the surface temperature from the Korea Multi-purpose Satellite (KOMPSAT)-3A mid-wave infrared (MWIR) data acquired over the southern California on Nov. 14, 2015 has been made using the MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission (MODTRAN) radiative transfer model. Since after the successful launch on March 25, 2015, the KOMPSAT-3A spacecraft and its two payload instruments - the high-resolution multispectral optical sensor and the scanner infrared imaging system (SIIS) - continue to operate properly. SIIS uses the MWIR spectral band of 3.3-5.2 ㎛ for data acquisition. As input data for the realistic simulation of the KOMPSAT-3A SIIS imaging conditions in the MODTRAN model, we used the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) atmospheric profiles, the KOMPSAT-3Asensor response function, the solar and line-of-sight geometry, and the University of Wisconsin emissivity database. The land cover type of the study area includes water,sand, and agricultural (vegetated) land located in the southern California. Results of surface temperature showed the reasonable geographical pattern over water, sand, and agricultural land. It is however worthwhile to note that the surface temperature pattern does not resemble the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiance counterpart. This is because MWIR TOA radiances consist of both shortwave (0.2-5 ㎛) and longwave (5-50 ㎛) components and the surface temperature depends solely upon the surface emitted radiance of longwave components. We found in our case that the shortwave surface reflection primarily causes the difference of geographical pattern between surface temperature and TOA radiance. Validation of the surface temperature for this study is practically difficult to perform due to the lack of ground truth data. We therefore made simple comparisons with two datasets over Salton Sea: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) field data and Salton Sea data. The current estimate differs with these datasets by 2.2 K and 1.4 K, respectively, though it seems not possible to quantify factors causing such differences.

Keywords

1. Introduction

The Earth faces in every moment with natural and human-induced changes and thus we have been striving to adapt to such changes for better life in future. Earth observing satellites and the remote sensing technology owing to advancements in science and technology allow us to continue to monitor the Earth. To predict the Earth’s climate and environmental changes by using a global numerical model, we need to prescribe the geophysical variables at present state. Surface temperature is one of such geophysical variables and known to be closely related to understanding the physical process of the exchange of energy and water on the Earth’s surface (Anderson et al., 2008). More importantly, because of its significance in the analysis of global warming, World Meteorological Organization (WMO) selects it as one of Essential Climate Variables (Bojinski et al., 2014).

Analysis of the surface temperature using the Earth observing satellites began with the operation of the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) carried by the Television Infrared Observation Satellites (TIROS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites in the 1970s. The split-window algorithm (McMillin, 1975) using two thermal spectral bands of AVHRR has been widely used to derive the surface temperature. The advantage of the above algorithm is that we can calculate the surface temperature without any information of atmospheric profiles if we know the surface spectral emissivity a priori. However, we cannot apply this method for the Korea Multi-purpose Satellite (KOMPSAT)-3A infrared data since the KOMPSAT- 3A infrared payload instrument uses the single mid wave infrared (MWIR) spectral band for data acquisition. KOMPSAT-3A was successfully launched on March 25, 2015 by a Russian-Ukrainian Dnepr launch vehicle and carried two payload instruments that provide the multi-spectral images of 55 cm spatial resolution and the MWIR images of 5.5 m spatial resolution. KOMPSAT-3A MWIR measurements are made in the spectral range of 3.3–5.2 μm. It is important to note that the daytime measurements by MWIR sensors include both the reflected shortwave (0.2–5 μm) radiation and the emitted longwave (5–50 μm) radiation. Therefore, we should consider this point when calculating the surface temperature for this study.

In the past decades, a variety of algorithms has been developed to derive the surface temperature from satellite measurements (Gillespie et al., 1999; Li et al., 2013). Li et al. (2013) classified such algorithms into two categories with respect to the emissivity information: (1) retrieval algorithms with known emissivity (Cristόbal et al., 2009; Jiménez-Muñoz and Sobrino, 2003; Jiménez-Muñoz et al., 2009; Qin et al., 2001; Becker and Li, 1990; McMillin, 1975; Sobrino et al., 1994; Wan and Dozier, 1996; Prata, 1993; Sobrino et al., 1996; Sὸria and Sobrino, 2007) and (2) retrieval algorithms with unknown emissivity (Gillespie et al., 1999; Peres and DaCamara, 2005; Snyder et al., 1998; Valor and Caselles, 1996; Van de Griend and Owe, 1993; Sobrino and Raissouni, 2000; Jiang et al., 2006; Li and Becker, 1993; Li et al., 2000; Peres et al., 2010; Peres and DaCamara, 2004; Watson, 1992; Wan, 1999; Wan and Li, 1997; Barducci and Pippi, 1996; Gillespie et al., 1998; Gillespie et al., 2011; Borel, 1998; Borel, 2008; Wang et al., 2011; Aires et al., 2001; Aires et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2013; Li et al., 2007; Ma et al., 2000; Ma et al., 2002). They are also referred as deterministic and non-deterministic approaches, respectively (Hulley and Hook, 2011). We applied the first category of algorithm for this study. In addition, we note that a few studies were carried out regarding the derivation of surface temperature using the MWIR remote sensing data (Zhao et al., 2014; Tang and Wang, 2016), but even their studies are not the one applied the single spectral band data. Kim et al. (2019) recently demonstrated that the surface temperature can be retrieved from the MWIR single spectral band data of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)/Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) airborne simulator (MASTER) (Hook et al., 2001). The purpose of this study is to derive the surface temperature from the KOMPSAT-3A MWIR data and further contribute to the development of surface temperature algorithms for the succeeding missions of KOMPSAT-7 and KOMPSAT-7A.

2. Methods and Data

We first introduce the physical principles of Planck’s law and the radiative transfer model and explain how to derive the surface temperature from the KOMPSAT- 3A MWIR data using these principles. We then describe the study area, KOMPSAT-3A satellite data, and some input data necessary for the radiative transfer model calculation.

1) Planck’s law and Radiative Transfer Model

Any object at an absolute temperature above 0 K emits the thermal radiative energy. According to Planck’s law, we can then express the emitted radiance (B), if the object is a blackbody, as follows:

\(B ( T ) = \frac { C 1 } { \pi \lambda ^ { 5 } [ e ^ { \frac { C 2 } { \lambda T } } - 1 ] }\)       (1)

where λ is wavelength (m), T is surface temperature (K), C1 is 3.741775 × 10-22 W·m3·μm-1, and C2 is 0.0143877 m·K. Surface temperature obtained from Eq. (1) is the radiance temperature and known as skin temperature or brightness temperature. To calculate the surface temperature from Eq. (1) for any image pixel of interest, we should be able to derive B(T). B(T) is a component of the satellite observed TOA radiance that can be defined, at a given MWIR wavelength, as a sum of six components (Wan and Li, 1997; Schowengerdt, 2007):

\(\text {TOA radiance } = (L+1)_{TOA} = [\text {Ldir + Ldif +} \varepsilon B(T) +\rho \text {Idif]} \tau \text {+ Lpath + Ipath}\)       (2)

where L and I represent radiances for shortwave (solar) components and longwave (infrared) components, respectively, Ldir is the unscattered (direct), surface- reflected solar radiance, Ldif is the down-scatterd, surface-reflected solar diffuse radiance, ε is surface emissivity, ρ is reflectance (1-ε, assuming Kirchhoff’s law), B(T) is the surface emitted radiance at surface (brightness) temperature (T), Idif is the downward atmospheric infrared radiance, τ is total transmittance, Lpath is the upward solar path radiance, and Ipath is the upward infrared path radiance (emitted by atmosphere). We can therefore derive B(T) while applying the MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission (MODTRAN) radiative transfer model to solve Eq. (2).

For the above calculation, we used the MODTRAN 5.2 radiative transfer model (Berk et al., 2008) since it was available at work and efficient for the computational implementation. MODTRAN represents the U.S. Air Force standard moderate spectral resolution radiative transfer model for spectral range from the thermal infrared through the visible and into the ultraviolet (0.2 to 10,000 μm). MODTRAN uses a statistical band model to calculate spectral band transmittances, radiances, and fluxes. This statistical method is known to be in good agreement with the accuracy of a line- by-line algorithm: transmittance is generally better than ±0.005, thermal brightness temperature is better than 1 K, and radiance is approximately ±2%.

We need the input data for the MODTRAN radiative transfer model to calculate the surface emitted radiance from TOA radiance. Table 1 shows the major components of MODTRAN input data used for this study. For the atmospheric profiles such as pressure, temperature, and geopotential height, we used the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)/National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalysis data, which were subsequently regenerated by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) for 26 pressure levels with 1- degree spatial resolution and 4-times daily temporal coverage. We then incorporated into the input data the KOMPSAT-3A Sensor Response Function (SRF), which was provided by a foreign vendor and classified into the restricted data by the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI), and the values of the line-of-sight geometry as shown in Table 1. The Global 30 Arc- Second Elevation (GTOPO30) data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have been applied for surface elevation. The ground surface reflectance, one of important input data for the calculation of surface emitted radiances, will be described in Section 3) with more details.

Table 1. Major components of MODTRAN input data

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_t0001.png 이미지

2) Study Area and KOMPSAT-3A Satellite Data

To apply the radiometric calibration coefficients derived from the previous study (Kim, 2020), we use the same study area as before. The study area as shown in Fig. 1 includes the southern part of Salton Sea that lies in the southern California. It has different land cover types of natural objects such as water, sand, and agricultural (vegetated) land. We can therefore expect the various patterns of surface temperature produced from different land cover types due to their differences in surface emissivity. Salton Sea, meanwhile, has the merit of maintaining the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) buoy (33.23°N, 115.82°W), where in-situ surface temperatures are measured every two minutes and can be used for comparisons with satellite derived results.

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. KOMPSAT-3A level-1G image (590 x 685 pixels) data acquired over the southernmost part of Salton Sea in California on Nov. 14, 2015. This area of image serves as a study area.

The KOMPSAT-3A satellite acquired the image data of Fig. 1 on Nov. 14, 2015. The original spatial resolution of KOMPSAT-3A image data is 5.5 m, but they have been resampled to 30 m for public release. The current resampled image data consist of 590 × 685 pixels. Table 2 summarizes the coordinates of major points on the image. The radiometric quantization of each image pixel is 14 bits and thus the digital number (DN) of the image may range from 0 to 16,383. To retrieve the surface temperature from such KOMPSAT- 3A image data, we need to convert DN to the physical variable of radiance. We used the following Eq. (3) (Kim, 2020) to produce the TOA radiance image as shown in Fig. 2:

Table 2. Coordinates of KOMPSAT-3A level-1G image in Fig. 1

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_t0002.png 이미지

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. KOMPSAT-3A MWIR TOA radiances (W·m-2·sr-1· μm-1) calculated by using Eq. (3).

\(TOA \text { radiance } = a \cdot DN ^ { 2 } + b \cdot DN + c\)       (3)

where a=1.3e–8, b=–0.00015 and c=1.1. As mentioned earlier, we run the MODTRAN radiative transfer model employing the above TOA radiance image with other relevant data as input to calculate the surface emitted radiance and subsequently the surface temperature.

3) Emissivity Data

To perform the MODTRAN model calculation, we used the University of Wisconsin (UW) baseline fit emissivity database as an alternative input since no concurrent measurements for surface reflectance (i.e., – 1 emissivity) for KOMPSAT-3A image pixels at the time of its overpass were available. This database provides the global monthly emissivity map at 10 wavelengths (3.6, 4.3, 5.0, 5.8, 7.6, 8.3, 9.3, 10.8, 12.1, and 14.3 μm) with 0.05 degree spatial resolution (Seemann et al., 2008). The sources of the database are the NASA MODIS operational land surface emissivity product (http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/html/ em.html) and the laboratory measurements of surface emissivity such as the ASTER spectral library (Salisbury et al., 1994). The ASTER spectral library consists of data sources from the Johns Hopkins University spectral library, the NASA JPL spectral library, and the USGS spectral library.

Using the above UW emissivity (εi) database and the KOMPSAT-3A sensor response function (Ψi), we calculated the KOMPSAT-3A MWIR emissivity based on the following Eq. (4):

\(\varepsilon _ { \text { KOMPSAT-3A } } = \frac { \Sigma ( \Psi _ { i } * \varepsilon _ { i } ) } { \Sigma \Psi _ { i } }\)       (4)

Fig. 3 shows the results of November 2015 for the global area (a) and for the present study area (b). It is notable that the emissivity pattern captures general features of natural materials in the southern California: high values over Salton Sea water, low values over sand (desert), and median values over agricultural land.

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 3. KOMPSAT-3A MWIR emissivity of November 2015 derived from the UW emissivity database for the global area (a) and for the present study area (b).

3. Results and Discussion

Fig. 4 illustrates the surface temperature derived from the KOMPSAT-3A MWIR data using the MODTRAN radiative transfer model based on the method described in the previous section. As this time of image acquisition in the northern hemisphere shifts into winter, surface temperatures in the bottom left of lowland desert areas appear to be lower than those of Salton Sea and agricultural land. It is interesting to see that such differences between two areas cannot be found in the distribution of KOMPSAT-3A MWIR TOA radiances (Fig. 2). If we want to analyze this in detail, it is necessary to remind that 1) MWIR TOA radiances consist of reflected shortwave radiances and emitted longwave radiances and 2) surface temperature depends solely on the surface emitted longwave radiance.

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 4. Surface temperature derived from the KOMPSAT3AMWIRdataofNov.14,2015usingtheMODTRAN radiative transfer model.

For the analysis of the above feature, we calculate the ratios of atmospheric radiances and surface emitted radiances to KOMPSAT-3A MWIR TOA radiances as shown in Fig. 5. We can see that the contribution of surface emitted radiances to TOA radiances is dominant and about 2 to 4 times larger than the atmospheric contribution. The above differences between two areas are also notable in the distribution of atmospheric and surface emitted components. This implies that these two components do not cause TOA radiances of lowland desert areas to be larger compared to other areas. Therefore, we will examine another important component contributing to TOA radiances, i.e., surface reflected radiances. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the differences between two areas reversely appear in the distribution of the ratio of surface reflected radiances to MWIR TOA radiances. The surface reflected radiances in lowland desert areas are relatively greater than Salton Sea and agricultural land. It becomes clear that surface reflected radiances significantly affecting MWIR TOA radiances result in differences of the geographical pattern between two areas. This example clearly demonstrates why we should be careful in the analysis of MWIR TOA radiances that include both shortwave and longwave radiation components.

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 5. Ratios of (a) atmospheric radiances and (b) surface emitted radiances to KOMPSAT-3A MWIR TOA radiances.

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_f0006.png 이미지

Fig. 6. Ratio of surface reflected radiances to KOMPSAT3A MWIR TOA radiances.

Due to the lack of satellite-derived surface temperature data (e.g., Landsat and MODIS products) over the study area, we will make simple comparisons with available data. In-situ data are available at two websites: 1) Salton Sea (https://saltonsea.jpl.nasa.gov/) operated by NASA JPL based on buoy measurements 2) Sea Temperature Info (https://seatemperature.info/) based on satellite and in-situ data. Table 3 summarizes the comparisons of the KOMPSAT-3A MWIR estimate with the above data. The surface temperature extracted from the NASA JPL field data is the measured value close to the KOMPSAT overpass time (about 13:41 p.m.) and the KOMPSAT-3A MWIR estimate is the value of nearest-neighbor pixel (located at about 14 km southeast of the NASA JPL buoy). The results show that the current estimate is lower than the NASA JPL field data and Salton Sea data, differing by 2.2 K and 1.4 K, respectively. Although many factors including colocation issues among measurements and characteristics inherent in each data seem to make such differences, it is not possible to quantify them in detail.

Table 3. Comparisons of surface temperature over Salton Sea

OGCSBN_2022_v38n4_343_t0003.png 이미지

4. Conclusions

Retrieval of the surface temperature from satellite infrared data is important in their applications and services. We have attempted to derive the surface temperature from KOMPSAT-3A MWIR data acquired over the southern California on Nov. 14, 2015, using the MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission (MODTRAN) radiative transfer model. As described previously, we used the relevant input data for MODTRAN model such as UW emissivity, NCEP atmospheric profiles, and the solar and line-of-sight geometry at the time of KOMPSAT-3A overpass over the above area. Results of surface temperature reasonably demonstrated the seasonal geographical patterns over water, sand, and agricultural land: i.e., warmer surface temperatures (higher values) in Salton Sea and agricultural land relative to lowland desert areas. Such patterns are seen to be closely related to the surface emitted longwave radiances but cannot be found in the distribution of MWIR TOA radiances. We demonstrated in a subsequent analysis that surface reflected radiances affect more MWIR TOA radiances than surface emitted radiances do. This is why we should be careful in the analysis of MWIR TOA radiances that include both shortwave and longwave radiances, unlike typical thermal infrared radiances. For simple validation purposes, we compared the current estimate with two other measurements of NASA JPL field data and Salton Sea data. The current estimate differs with these datasets by 2.2 K and 1.4 K, respectively. Although many factors including colocation issues among measurements and characteristics inherent in each data might contribute to such differences, it is not possible to quantify them in detail. We rather suggest the future study on the validation of surface temperature derived from KOMPSAT-3A MWIR data in a comprehensive and systematic manner.

References

  1. Aires, F., C. Prigent, W.B. Rossow, and M. Rothstein, 2001. A new neural network approach including first guess for retrieval of atmospheric water vapor, cloud liquid water path, surface temperature, and emissivities over land from satellite microwave observations, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106(D14): 14887-14907. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900085
  2. Aires, F., A. Chedin, N.A. Scott, and W.B. Rossow, 2002. A regularized neural net approach for retrieval of atmospheric and surface temperatures with the IASI instrument, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 41(2): 144-159. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2002)041<0144:ARNNAF>2.0.CO;2
  3. Anderson, M.C., J.M. Norman, W.P. Kustas, R. Houborg, P.J. Starks, and N. Agam, 2008. A thermal-based remote sensing technique for routine mapping of land-surface carbon, water and energy fluxes from field to regional scales, Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(12): 4227-4241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.07.009
  4. Barducci, A. and I. Pippi, 1996. Temperature and emissivity retrieval from remotely sensed images using the "grey body emissivity" method, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 34(3): 681-695. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.499748
  5. Becker, F. and Z.-L. Li, 1990. Towards a local split window method over land surfaces, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 11(3): 369-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431169008955028
  6. Berk, A., G.P. Anderson, P.K. Acharya, and E.P. Shettle, 2008. MODTRAN® 5.2.0.0 USER'S MANUAL, Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Materiel Command, Bedford, MA, USA.
  7. Bojinski, S., M. Verstraete, T. C. Peterson, C. Richter, A. Simmons, and M. Zemp, 2014. The concept of essential climate variables in support of climate research, applications, and policy, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(9): 1431-1443. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00047.1
  8. Borel, C., 2008. Error analysis for a temperature and emissivity retrieval algorithm for hyperspectral imaging data, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18): 5029-5045. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160802036540
  9. Borel, C.C., 1998. Surface emissivity and temperature retrieval for a hyperspectral sensor, Proc. of 1998 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Seattle, WA, Jul. 6-10, vol. 1, pp. 546-549. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.1998.702966
  10. Cristobal, J., J.C. Jimenez-Munoz, J.A. Sobrino, M. Ninyerola, and X. Pons, 2009. Improvements in land surface temperature retrieval from the Landsat series thermal band using water vapor and air temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114(D8): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010616
  11. Gillespie, A., S. Rokugawa, T. Matsunaga, J.S. Cothern, S. Hook, and A.B. Kahle, 1998. A temperature and emissivity separation algorithm for Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) images, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 36(4): 1113-1126. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.700995
  12. Gillespie, A.R., S. Rokukawa, S.J. Hook, T. Matsunaga, and A.B. Kahle, 1999. Temperature/emissivity separation algorithm theoretical basis document, version 2.4, ATBD Contract NAS5-31372, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington D.C., USA, pp. 64.
  13. Gillespie, A.R., E.A. Abbott, L. Gilson, G. Hulley, J.C. Jimenez-Munoz, and J.A. Sobrino, 2011. Residual errors in ASTER temperature and emissivity standard products AST08 and AST05, Remote Sensing of Environment, 115(12): 3681-3694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.09.007
  14. Hook, S.J., J.J. Myers, K.J. Thome, M. Fitzgerald, and A.B. Kahle, 2001. The MODIS/ASTER airborne simulator (MASTER) - a new instrument for earth science studies, Remote Sensing of Environment, 76(1): 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00195-4
  15. Hulley, G.C. and S.J. Hook, 2011. HyspIRI level-2 thermal infrared (TIR) land surface temperature and emissivity algorithm theoretical basis document, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Pasadena, CA, USA.
  16. Jiang, G.M., Z.-L. Li, and F. Nerry, 2006. Land surface emissivity retrieval from combined mid-infrared and thermal infrared data of MSG-SEVIRI, Remote Sensing of Environment, 105(4): 326-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.07.015
  17. Jimenez-Munoz, J.C. and J.A. Sobrino, 2003. A generalized single-channel method for retrieving land surface temperature from remote sensing data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 108(D22). https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003480
  18. Jimenez-Munoz, J.C., J. Cristobal, J.A. Sobrino, G. Soria, M. Ninyerola, and X. Pons, 2009. Revision of the single-channel algorithm for land surface temperature retrieval from Landsat thermal-infrared data, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 47(1): 339-349. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2008.2007125
  19. Kim, Y., N. Malakar, G. Hulley, and S. Hook, 2019. Surface temperature retrieval from MASTER mid-wave infrared single channel data using radiative transfer model, Korean Journal of Remote Sensing, 35(1): 151-162. https://doi.org/10.7780/kjrs.2019.35.1.10
  20. Kim, Y., 2020. Derivation of radiometric calibration coefficients for KOMPSAT-3A mid-wave infrared data using a radiative transfer model: An exploratory example, Korean Journal of Remote Sensing, 36(6-2): 1629-1634 (in Korean with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.7780/kjrs.2020.36.6.2.12
  21. Li, J., J. Li, E. Weisz, and D.K. Zhou, 2007. Physical retrieval of surface emissivity spectrum from hyperspectral infrared radiances, Geophysical Research Letters, 34(16): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030543
  22. Li, Z.-L. and F. Becker, 1993. Feasibility of land surface temperature and emissivity determination from AVHRR data, Remote Sensing of Environment, 43(1): 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(93)90065-6
  23. Li, Z., F. Petitcolin, and R. Zhang, 2000. A physically based algorithm for land surface emissivity retrieval from combined mid-infrared and thermal infrared data, Science in China Series E: Technological Sciences, 43(1): 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02916575
  24. Li, Z.-L., B.-H. Tang, H. Wu, H. Ren, G. Yan, Z. Wan, I.F. Trigo, and J.A. Sobrino, 2013. Satellitederived land surface temperature: current status and perspectives, Remote Sensing of Environment, 131: 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.12.008
  25. Ma, X.L., Z. Wan, C.C. Moeller, W.P. Menzel, L.E. Gumley, and Y. Zhang, 2000. Retrieval of geophysical parameters from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer thermal infrared data: Evaluation of a two-step physical algorithm, Applied Optics, 39(20): 3537-3550. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.39.003537
  26. Ma, X.L., Z. Wan, C.C. Moeller, W.P. Menzel, and L.E. Gumley, 2002. Simultaneous retrieval of atmospheric profiles, land-surface temperature, and surface emissivity from Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer thermal infrared data: extension of a two-step physical algorithm, Applied Optics, 41(5): 909-924. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.41.000909
  27. McMillin, L.M., 1975. Estimation of sea surface temperature from two infrared window measurements with different absorptions, Journal of Geophysical Research, 80(36): 5113-5117. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i036p05113
  28. Peres, L.F. and C.C. DaCamara, 2004. Land surface temperature and emissivity estimation based on the two-temperature method: sensitivity analysis using simulated MSG/SEVIRI data, Remote Sensing of Environment, 91(3-4): 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.03.011
  29. Peres, L.F. and C.C. DaCamara, 2005. Emissivity maps to retrieve land-surface temperature from MSG/SEVIRI, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 43(8): 1834-1844. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2005.851172
  30. Peres, L.F., C.C. DaCamara, I.F. Trigo, and S.C. Freitas, 2010. Synergistic use of the two-temperature and split-window methods for land-surface temperature retrieval, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 31(16): 4387-4409. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160903260973
  31. Prata, A.J., 1993. Land surface temperatures derived from the advanced very high resolution radiometer and the along- track scanning radiometer: 1. Theory, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 98(D9): 16689-16702. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JD01206
  32. Qin, Z., A. Karnieli, and P. Berliner, 2001. A mono-window algorithm for retrieving land surface temperature from Landsat TM data and its application to the Israel-Egypt border region, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 22(18): 3719-3746. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160010006971
  33. Salisbury, J.W., A. Wald, and D.M. D'Aria, 1994. Thermal-infrared remote sensing and Kirchhoff's law: 1. Laboratory measurements, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 99(B6): 11897-11911. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB03600
  34. Schowengerdt, R.A., 2007. Remote sensing: models and methods for image processing, 3rd ed., Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  35. Seemann, S.W., E.E. Borbas, R.O. Knuteson, G.R. Stephenson, and H.-L. Huang, 2008. Development of a global infrared land surface emissivity database for application to clear sky sounding retrievals from multispectral satellite radiance measurements, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47(1): 108-123. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAMC1590.1
  36. Snyder, W.C., Z. Wan, Y. Zhang, and Y.Z. Feng, 1998. Classification-based emissivity for land surface temperature measurement from space, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19(14): 2753-2774. https://doi.org/10.1080/014311698214497
  37. Sobrino, J.A., Z.-L. Li, M.P. Stoll, and F. Becker, 1994. Improvements in the split-window technique for land surface temperature determination, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 32(2): 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.295038
  38. Sobrino, J.A., Z.-L. Li, M.P. Stoll, and F. Becker, 1996. Multi-channel and multi-angle algorithms for estimating sea and land surface temperature with ATSR data, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17(11): 2089-2114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431169608948760
  39. Sobrino, J.A. and N. Raissouni, 2000. Toward remote sensing methods for land cover dynamic monitoring: application to Morocco, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21(2): 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/014311600210876
  40. Soria, G. and J.A. Sobrino, 2007. ENVISAT/AATSR derived land surface temperature over a heterogeneous region, Remote Sensing of Environment, 111(4): 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.03.017
  41. Tang, B.-H. and J. Wang, 2016. A physics-based method to retrieve land surface temperature from MODIS daytime midinfrared data, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 54(8): 4672-4679. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS. 2016.2548500
  42. Valor, E. and V. Caselles, 1996. Mapping land surface emissivity from NDVI: application to European, African, and South American areas, Remote Sensing of Environment, 57(3): 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(96)00039-9
  43. Van de Griend, A.A. and M. Owe, 1993. On the relationship between thermal emissivity and the normalized difference vegetation index for natural surfaces, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 14(6): 1119-1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431169308904400
  44. Wan, Z., 1999. MODIS land-surface temperature algorithm theoretical basis document (LST ATBD) ver 3.3, Institute for Computational Earth System Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, pp. 77.
  45. Wan, Z. and J. Dozier, 1996. A generalized split-window algorithm for retrieving land-surface temperature from space, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 34(4): 892-905. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.508406
  46. Wan, Z. and Z.-L. Li, 1997. A physics-based algorithm for retrieving land-surface emissivity and temperature from EOS/MODIS data, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 35(4): 980-996. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.602541
  47. Wang, N., H. Wu, F. Nerry, C. Li, and Z.-L. Li, 2011. Temperature and emissivity retrievals from hyperspectral thermal infrared data using linear spectral emissivity constraint, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 49(4): 1291-1303. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2010.2062527
  48. Wang, N., Z.-L. Li, B.-H. Tang, F. Zeng, and C. Li, 2013. Retrieval of atmospheric and land surface parameters from satellite-based thermal infrared hyperspectral data using a neural network technique, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 34(9-10): 3485-3502. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2012.716536
  49. Watson, K., 1992. Two-temperature method for measuring emissivity, Remote Sensing of Environment, 42(2): 117-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(92)90095-2
  50. Zhao, E., Y. Qian, C. Gao, H. Huo, X. Jiang, and X. Kong, 2014. Land surface temperature retrieval using airborne hyperspectral scanner daytime mid-infrared data, Remote Sensing, 6(12): 12667-12685. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs61212667