search

TimHessels / SEBAL

The Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land
Apache License 2.0
27 stars 28 forks source link

Hot and cold pixel values for the VIIRS_PROBAV run #4

Closed anikfal closed 3 years ago

anikfal commented 3 years ago

Considering the VIIRS_PROBAV run, I used 0 and 0.2 for the cold and hot pixels respectively. The model ran without any error. However, the output variables relevant to the satellite data are not logical.

Some outputs such as PROBAV_VIIRS_ts_dem_100m_2019_106, PROBAV_VIIRS_hot_pixels_100m_2019_106, PROBAV_VIIRS_cold_pixels_100m_2019_106, and PROBAV_QC_MAP_After_VIS_375m_2019_106 are missing or 0. And some other outputs such as coef_A, coef_A, and coef_A just cover very small areas, and show nodata for most parts of the area of interest, which apparently is not logical. The same condition is found for other primary outputs (evapotranspiration and radiation).

I have checked all the input data (their units and ranges), and I am pretty sure that they are correct.

TimHessels commented 3 years ago

Normally this is the case when pySEBAL assumes that there are clouds within the VIIRS image. Can you make sure this viirs image is cloud free?

Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10

From: Amirhossein Nikfalmailto:notifications@github.com Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 9:23 AM To: TimHessels/SEBALmailto:SEBAL@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribedmailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: [TimHessels/SEBAL] Hot and cold pixel values for the VIIRS_PROBAV run (#4)

Considering the VIIRS_PROBAV run, I used 0 and 0.2 for the cold and hot pixels respectively. The model ran without any error. However, the output variables relevant to the satellite data are not logical.

Some outputs such as PROBAV_VIIRS_ts_dem_100m_2019_106, PROBAV_VIIRS_hot_pixels_100m_2019_106, PROBAV_VIIRS_cold_pixels_100m_2019_106, and PROBAV_QC_MAP_After_VIS_375m_2019_106 are missing or 0. And some other outputs such as coef_A, coef_A, and coef_A just cover very small areas, and show nodata for most parts of the area of interest, which apparently is not logical. The same condition is found for other primary outputs (evapotranspiration and radiation).

I have checked all the input data (their units and ranges), and I am pretty sure that they are correct.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FTimHessels%2FSEBAL%2Fissues%2F4&data=04%7C01%7C%7C289650ee4b5746da530c08d8a26514d8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637437902314890802%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=SKF8usYuTJPqCSM90JY5e9stsRMy12FjksYPFdyW6cA%3D&reserved=0, or unsubscribehttps://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAEMKYSEEPG55EFJHHWGEYZDSVG5ZLANCNFSM4U7HNSPQ&data=04%7C01%7C%7C289650ee4b5746da530c08d8a26514d8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637437902314890802%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=iM9H%2FwlpRb%2FDD2aUSZVNDZH5mF4ROiM2UNkCo9CyALg%3D&reserved=0.

anikfal commented 3 years ago

Nearly 50% of the area of interest is covered with clouds. I multiplied the brightness temperature inside the VIIRS HDF file by the brightness temperature factors, and converted it to GeoTIFF to be used as the input data. I can run the model for a more dry area, with less clouds, to see if makes any difference.

anikfal commented 3 years ago

Model results for another domain with less clouds was okay.