Long-term and high-quality surface soil moisture (SSM) and root-zone soil moisture (RZSM) data is crucial for understanding the land-atmosphere interactions of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP). More than 40% of QTP is covered by permafrost, yet few studies have evaluated the accuracy of SSM and RZSM products derived from microwave satellite, land surface models (LSMs) and reanalysis over that region. This study tries to address this gap by evaluating a range of satellite and reanalysis estimates of SSM and RZSM in the thawed soil overlaying permafrost in the QTP, using in-situ measurements from sixteen stations. Here, seven SSM products were evaluated: Soil Moisture Active Passive L3 (SMAP L3) and L4 (SMAP-L4), Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity in version IC (SMOS IC), Land Parameter Retrieval Model (LPRM) Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2), European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI), Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT), and the fifth generation of the land component of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts atmospheric reanalysis (ERAS-Land). We also evaluated three RZSM products from SMAP-L4, ERA5-Land, and the Noah land surface model driven by Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS-Noah). The assessment was conducted using five statistical metrics, i. e. Pearson correlation coefficient (R), bias, slope, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and unbiased RMSE (ubRMSE) between SSM or RZSM products and in-situ measurements. Our results showed that the ESA CCI, SMAP-L4 and SMOS-IC SSM products outperformed the other SSM products, indicated by higher correlation coefficients (R) (with a median R value of 0.63, 0.44 and 0.57, respectively) and lower ubRMSE (with a median ubRMSE value of 0.05, 0.04 and 0.07 m(3)/m(3), respectively). Yet, SSM overestimation was found for all SSM products. This could be partly attributed to ancillary data used in the retrieval (e.g. overestimation of land surface temperature for SMAP-L3) and to the fact that the products (e.g. LPRM) more easily overestimate the in-situ SSM when the soil is very dry. As expected, SMAP-L3 SSM performed better in areas with sparse vegetation than with dense vegetation covers. For RZSM products, SMAP-L4 and GLDAS-Noah (R = 0.66 and 0.44, ubRMSE = 0.03 and 0.02 m(3)/m(3), respectively) performed better than ERAS-Land (R = 0.46; ubRMSE = 0.03 m(3)/m(3)). It is also found that all RZSM products were unable to capture the variations of in-situ RZSM during the freezing/thawing period over the permafrost regions of QTP, due to large deviation for the ice-water phase change simulation and the lack of consideration for unfrozen-water migration during freezing processes in the LSMs.

Long-term and high-quality surface soil moisture (SSM) and root-zone soil moisture (RZSM) data is crucial for understanding the land-atmosphere interactions of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP). More than 40% of QTP is covered by permafrost, yet few studies have evaluated the accuracy of SSM and RZSM products derived from microwave satellite, land surface models (LSMs) and reanalysis over that region. This study tries to address this gap by evaluating a range of satellite and reanalysis estimates of SSM and RZSM in the thawed soil overlaying permafrost in the QTP, using in-situ measurements from sixteen stations. Here, seven SSM products were evaluated: Soil Moisture Active Passive L3 (SMAP L3) and L4 (SMAP-L4), Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity in version IC (SMOS IC), Land Parameter Retrieval Model (LPRM) Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2), European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI), Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT), and the fifth generation of the land component of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts atmospheric reanalysis (ERAS-Land). We also evaluated three RZSM products from SMAP-L4, ERA5-Land, and the Noah land surface model driven by Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS-Noah). The assessment was conducted using five statistical metrics, i. e. Pearson correlation coefficient (R), bias, slope, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and unbiased RMSE (ubRMSE) between SSM or RZSM products and in-situ measurements. Our results showed that the ESA CCI, SMAP-L4 and SMOS-IC SSM products outperformed the other SSM products, indicated by higher correlation coefficients (R) (with a median R value of 0.63, 0.44 and 0.57, respectively) and lower ubRMSE (with a median ubRMSE value of 0.05, 0.04 and 0.07 m(3)/m(3), respectively). Yet, SSM overestimation was found for all SSM products. This could be partly attributed to ancillary data used in the retrieval (e.g. overestimation of land surface temperature for SMAP-L3) and to the fact that the products (e.g. LPRM) more easily overestimate the in-situ SSM when the soil is very dry. As expected, SMAP-L3 SSM performed better in areas with sparse vegetation than with dense vegetation covers. For RZSM products, SMAP-L4 and GLDAS-Noah (R = 0.66 and 0.44, ubRMSE = 0.03 and 0.02 m(3)/m(3), respectively) performed better than ERAS-Land (R = 0.46; ubRMSE = 0.03 m(3)/m(3)). It is also found that all RZSM products were unable to capture the variations of in-situ RZSM during the freezing/thawing period over the permafrost regions of QTP, due to large deviation for the ice-water phase change simulation and the lack of consideration for unfrozen-water migration during freezing processes in the LSMs.

This special issue is focused on the assessment of algorithms for the observation of Earth's climate from environmental satellites. Climate data records derived by remote sensing are increasingly a key source of insight into the workings of and changes in Earth's climate system. Producers of data sets must devote considerable effort and expertise to maximise the true climate signals in their products and minimise effects of data processing choices and changing sensors. A key choice is the selection of algorithm(s) for classification and/or retrieval of the climate variable. Within the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative, science teams undertook systematic assessment of algorithms for a range of essential climate variables. The papers in the special issue report some of these exercises (for ocean colour, aerosol, ozone, greenhouse gases, clouds, soil moisture, sea surface temperature and glaciers). The contributions show that assessment exercises must be designed with care, considering issues such as the relative importance of different aspects of data quality (accuracy, precision, stability, sensitivity, coverage, etc.), the availability and degree of independence of validation data and the limitations of validation in characterising some important aspects of data (such as long-term stability or spatial coherence). As well as requiring a significant investment of expertise and effort, systematic comparisons are found to be highly valuable. They reveal the relative strengths and weaknesses of different algorithmic approaches under different observational contexts, and help ensure that scientific conclusions drawn from climate data records are not influenced by observational artifacts, but are robust. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.