Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Cloud-Filling Algorithms for Marine Satellite Data
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Cloud-Filling Algorithms for Marine Satellite Data
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Cloud-Filling Algorithms for Marine Satellite Data
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of Cloud-Filling Algorithms for Marine Satellite Data
2020
Overview
Marine remote sensing provides comprehensive characterizations of the ocean surface across space and time. However, cloud cover is a significant challenge in marine satellite monitoring. Researchers have proposed various algorithms to fill data gaps “below the clouds”, but a comparison of algorithm performance across several geographic regions has not yet been conducted. We compared ten basic algorithms, including data-interpolating empirical orthogonal functions (DINEOF), geostatistical interpolation, and supervised learning methods, in two gap-filling tasks: the reconstruction of chlorophyll a in pixels covered by clouds, and the correction of regional mean chlorophyll a concentrations. For this purpose, we combined tens of cloud-free images with hundreds of cloud masks in four study areas, creating thousands of situations in which to test the algorithms. The best algorithm depended on the study area and task, and differences between the best algorithms were small. Ordinary Kriging, spatiotemporal Kriging, and DINEOF worked well across study areas and tasks. Random forests reconstructed individual pixels most accurately. We also found that high levels of cloud cover led to considerable errors in estimated regional mean chlorophyll a concentration. These errors could, however, be reduced by about 50% to 80% (depending on the study area) with prior cloud-filling.
