Earth Science Asked on September 5, 2021
More specifically, can it be argued that satellite data are more reliable because they are direct measurements of physical quantities, while reanalysis data depend on the processing and merging of different datasets ?
Unfortunately, your question has no answer. Both have errors. Both can be unreliable. Your choice really depends on how you plan on using them.
Satellites instrument contain sources of error, such as bad observations (wildfires in the NIR), mapping problems (especially near the poles), and representation error. Don't underestimate those sources of error- Geer and Bauer found that representation error can result in errors in brightness temperature larger than 20 K. Reanalysis combines both observation errors and model errors. A good reanalysis will reduce the influence of both errors, but it is still ingrained into the product. Satellites still report back observations.
Reanalyses can be unreliable. For example, this paper shows that TRMM and PERSIANN‐CDR were more reliable than CFSR or ERA-interim.
Maybe more significantly, they both actually report entirely different things. Satellites measure radiances which can be converted into more sensible variables, while reanalyses use a mathematical representation of the atmosphere and observations. So comparing these are a lot like comparing apples and oranges.
Some other thoughts you may want to consider:
Correct answer by BarocliniCplusplus on September 5, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP