Closed ghost closed 3 years ago
The CDOM results seem to have similar trends, but there are still gaps in values
After checking your OSOAA inputs, it seems that there are some differences in comparison to the parameters used in Chami et al., 2020 (MDPI), which are listed in table 1 of the latter paper.
Here are the differences: -AER.AOTref: Qiaofeng (Q): 0.1, Chami 2020 (C) : 0.2 -AER.SF.Model : Q: 3 ; Ch: 4 -AER.SF.RH : Q: 98 ; Ch: 90 -SED.JD.MIwa: Q: 0.001 ; Ch: 0 -YS.Abs440 : Q: 0 ; Ch: 0.07 -SEA.Depth : Q: 10 000 ; Ch: 50 -SEA.BotType : Q: 1 (seabed albedo=0) ; Ch: 2 (sand)
You could thus see that your OSOAA simulations concern an infinitely deep water (z=10 000m) while Chami et al. (2020)'s simulation concerns a shallow water case ( 50 m) with a sand bottom type. Since we do not know what inputs you used for Hydrolight simulations, it is difficult for us to identify potential differences between OSOAA and Hydrolight ; we suggest you to verify that your Hydrolight inputs parameters are consistent with OSOAA inputs
I compared the water part of OSOAA with the HydroLight model
and the result is very different from the result of Radiative Transfer Model for the Computation of Radiance and Polarization in an Ocean-Atmosphere System: Polarization Properties of Suspended Matter for Remote Sensing(the relative errors are less than 2%). OSOAA parameter input refers to Influence of the Suspended Particulate Matter on the Satellite Radiance in the Sunglint Observation Geometry in Coastal Waters.
My input file is as follows:
My results is:
TSS results:
Chla results:
The x-axis is the wavelength and the y-axis is the $\rho$. $\rho$ Is the output of OSOAA 'I'/cos($\theta$), $theta$ is the sun zenith angle; in HydroLight it is, $\rho$ = pi*Rrs
My question is,
Why is the difference so big, is my input parameter wrong?
What are your input parameters?