the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Optimal Estimation Retrieval Framework for Daytime Clear-Sky Total Column Water Vapour from MTG-FCI Near-Infrared Measurements
Abstract. A retrieval of total column water vapour (TCWV) from the new daytime, clear-sky near-infrared measurements of the Flexible Combined Imager (FCI) on-board the geostationary satellite Meteosat Third Generation Imager (MTG) is presented. The retrieval algorithm is based on the differential absorption technique, relating TCWV amounts to the radiance ratio of a non-absorbing band at 0.865 µm and a nearby water vapour (WV) absorbing band at 0.914 µm. The sensitivity of the band ratio to WV amount increases towards the surface, which means the whole atmospheric column down to the boundary layer moisture variability can be observed well.
The retrieval framework is based on an Optimal Estimation (OE) method providing pixel-based uncertainty estimates. It builds on well-established algorithms successfully applied to other passive imagers with similar spectral band settings. Transferring knowledge gained in their development onto FCI required some new approaches. The absence of additional, adjacent window bands to estimate the surface reflectance within FCI's absorbing channel were mitigated using a Principle Component Regression (PCR) from the bands at 0.51, 0.64, 0.865, 1.61 and 2.25 µm.
Since a long-term calibrated FCI dataset is not available yet, we build a second forward model for two equivalent NIR bands (0.865 and 0.9 µm) on the Sentinel-3 Ocean and Land Colour Instrument (OLCI). A long-term validation of OLCI against a single Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) reference site without the PCR resulted in a bias of 1.85 kg/m2, centered root mean square deviation (cRMSD) of 1.26 kg/m2 and r2 of 0.995. In order to test the PCR which uses FCI bands in the visible to short-wave infrared, we replaced the bands missing in OLCI with bands from the Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer (SLSTR). A spectrally similar dataset was created from SLSTR and OLCI data on Sentinel-3A/B during June 2021. This dataset is used to test the retrieval with regards to robustness and global performance of the PCR. A first verification of this OLCI/SLSTR "FCI-alike" TCWV against well-established ground-based TCWV products concludes with a wet bias between 1.23–3.12 kg/m2, a cRMSD between 1.88–2.35 kg/m2 and r2 between 0.95–0.97. In this set of comparison, only land pixels were considered. Furthermore, a dataset of FCI Level 1c observations with a preliminary calibration was processed. The TCWV processed from FCI data aligns well with reanalysis TCWV and collocated OLCI/SLSTR TCWV but show a dry bias. A more rigorous validation and assessment will be done, once a longer record of FCI data is available.
The PCR may be extended to include more diverse water-bodies. In future iterations, more bands in the visible spectral range may be added to further increase performance in presence of aerosol over dark surfaces.
This novel TCWV dataset derived from geostationary satellite observations enhances monitoring of WV distributions and associated meteorological phenomena from synoptic scales down to local scales. Such observations are of special interest for the advancement of nowcasting techniques and Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) accuracy as well as process-studies.
- Preprint
(15093 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3605', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jan 2025
reply
In this paper, the authors develop a relatively simple yet powerful total column water vapor retrieval targeting the 0.91 micrometer solar water vapor absorption band that exists on several satellite sensors, most notably the MTG FCI. Its 1 km spatial resolution and 10 minute refresh will allow an unprecedented ability to track low-level water vapor. The scientific quality of the paper is excellent and I recommend it be accepted following only minor revisions, mainly related to presentation refinements.
Minor comments:
1) Line 38 and throughout the paper: the authors refer to "ρστ water vapor (WV) absorption regions" - I'm personally not familiar with the use of "ρστ" in this context, so it's worth introducing the meaning or definition here.
2) Lines 45-47: I suggest mentioning that IR techniques including the split-window difference depend on the atmospheric temperature profile (in addition to the water vapor profile), making it more complicated. In other words, using only the 0.86 and 0.91 channels [largely] avoids this temperature-related complication.
3) There are a number of minor English grammatical errors throughout; one example is in line 56, "has been initiated" should be "has initiated." Instead of pointing out all of them, I suggest doing a thorough read-through before resubmitting.
4) Line 65: use of the word "disturbing" here is odd. I know what you're trying to say, but perhaps rephrase.
5) Line 121: "was" instead of "has been".
6) Line 134: Don't reference an equation (13) here that appears later in the paper. Either introduce the equation here or save its mention for later.
7) Line 167 and throughout: I believe it's more standard to reference UTC time using the 24 hour clock instead of AM and PM. So 6 am UTC should be 0600 UTC and 6 PM UTC should be 1800 UTC.
8) Line 180: An interesting experiment (perhaps mentioned at the end as future work) would be to assess the sensitivity of the results to changes in AOT.
9) Figure 1 caption: isn't that line red and not green in the bottom panel?
10) Line 239: Related to my comment above about temperature sensitivity, here you mention that pressure-dependent line broadening may play a role. How large of a role? Non-negligible? As a reader I'm curious.
11) Line 258: following equation 3, it would be easier to follow if you define each of its terms in the same paragraph directly below the equation, instead of extending those definitions into the subsequent paragraph.
12) Equation 4: Make AMF either caps or not caps (amf) consistently.
13) Lines 285-302: Has this same derivation been presented in one of the referenced papers? If yes, there's no reason to recreate it here. This is a good opportunity to shorten a relatively long paper.
14) Line 351: I don't know the word eigenwert? Is that in German?
15) Figure 3 captions (and later figure captions): maybe this is a requirement for this journal (?), but it's unusual to define the subparts of the figures separately from the figure caption itself. Usually the subparts are defined within the single figure caption.
16) Figure 7c) caption: I don't think these dots are coloured with relative frequency of occurrence.
17) Line 446 and afterward: I suggest using the term "true color" instead of "natural color" to describe these red/green/blue images. Natural color has a different meaning, often.
18) Regarding Fig. 9: this falls into the future work category, but it would be really interesting to compare Fig 9b to a version that uses only IR channels, both to assess the improved spatial resolution and to see whether there are low-level WV features that the IR retrieval misses.
19) The Discussion and Outlook section is very good, but perhaps a little too long. This is really up to the journal editor.
In summary, this paper is a very important contribution to the literature. I'm very excited about the prospect of the retrieval being optimized using more real FCI data, then being incorporated into the NWCSAF GEO software for real-time, operational use. It has the potential to be a game-changing tool for use by forecasters in detecting and tracking low-level water vapor between clouds.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3605-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3605', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Apr 2025
reply
Summary
The manuscript by El Kassar et al. presents a retrieval framework for total column water vapour (TCWV) in the near-infrared (NIR) spectral range, designed for future observations from the MTG FCI instrument. Due to limited availability of real FCI data, the authors develop a forward model to emulate FCI-like radiances using OLCI/SLSTR observations. This synthetic dataset is used to apply and validate the retrieval framework. The results show good agreement between retrieved TCWV and reference datasets. In addition, the authors apply the method to a first set of FCI test data, demonstrating initial promising results.General Assessment
While the topic is relevant and the core idea has potential, the manuscript in its current form is far from ready for publication. It suffers from significant weaknesses in structure, clarity, language, and scientific rigour. In particular:- The writing is verbose and difficult to follow, lacking a clear narrative structure.
- The English is poor, with frequent language issues and awkward phrasing.
- Some figures are incorrect or misleading (e.g. missing or mislabelled elements).
- The presentation gives the impression of a hastily compiled manuscript, which undermines the quality of the work.
As a result, I would place this submission on the borderline between major revision and rejection. Nevertheless, I believe the methodological idea is interesting and worth pursuing. I therefore recommend a comprehensive major revision, with the expectation of a thoroughly rewritten manuscript.
Moreover, as actual FCI L1c data are now available, I strongly encourage the authors to include retrieval results based on real observations, rather than relying exclusively on emulated or synthetic data. The concept of generating synthetic FCI-like radiances is still valuable, and the corresponding methodology and validation results could be retained as supporting material — for example, in an appendix or the supplementary information. This would allow the manuscript to focus more clearly on the application and evaluation of the retrieval framework under realistic conditions.
Specific Comments
Note: This review focuses on content and structure. Issues with language, spelling, and phrasing are not addressed in detail here, but are pervasive and require careful editing.Introduction
- Needs reorganization: start by motivating the importance of water vapour retrievals, then introduce NIR capabilities, followed by the role of MTG/FCI (especially for nowcasting).
- Reduce length and focus on core arguments.
Data section (Section 2)
- ERA5 is not a forecast product – it is a reanalysis. Please correct this terminology.
- Why is ERA5 used at 3-hour resolution? Why not use ECMWF IFS forecasts directly, especially since you plan to use them in the future?
- Why rely on a fixed aerosol climatology? What would happen during dust events (e.g. Saharan dust transport to Europe)? Consider using aerosol forecasts (e.g. from IFS) to improve consistency.
- Radiosonde validation: Why are only ARM SGP data used? Why not include GRUAN, ARSA, or IGS GNSS data for more robust validation? Also: AERONET has known dry biases – why use it at all?
- Clearly state error assumptions for the ODR method.
- Define “centered RMSD”; this metric may not be familiar to all readers.
Physical Background (Section 3.1):
- How is the water vapour continuum treated? It is not discussed but can be significant.
- Sentences are repeated verbatim – please check for redundant phrasing.
Forward Model (Section 3.2):
- Equation (3): Where does the sqrt(AMF) term come from? And what is the source of the input for nL_TOA∗ ?
- Consider using a table of variable names for clarity.
- Tables 1 & 2: What are the parameter increments in the LUT? Regarding AOT: What about near-surface aerosol layers (e.g. at 0 m), or elevated layers (2–4 km)? What about different aerosol layer thicknesses?
- AMF depends on scattering and BRDF effects – how are these accounted for?
Inversion (Section 3.3):
- How are sun glint conditions over water handled?
- Again, ERA5 is not a forecast. Please revise terminology.
Section 3.4:
Claim that ρTOA=ρBOA needs justification. This neglects effects of broadband absorption from aerosols, the water vapour continuum, etc.
Validation (Section 4.1)
- As above, the validation dataset is too limited. Why only a few AERONET and SuomiNet stations?
- Statistical robustness is lacking. Include additional sources like GRUAN, ARSA, IGS-GNSS, etc.
Section 4.2:
- Define clearly how relative difference is calculated.
- Consider including a brief explanation of averaging kernels, especially in the OE context.
Discussion (Section 5): the discussion is overly long and needs to be drastically shortened. Please condense.
Figures
- Figure 1: The green line is missing.
- Figure 2: also wrong colors (METImage?) and wrong wavelength unit
References
Check reference formatting carefully – several entries are inconsistent or incorrect (e.g., El Kassar, EUMETSAT, Copernicus data, etc.).
Recommendation
I recommend major revision, bordering on rejection. However, I encourage the authors to revise thoroughly and resubmit, with the following in mind:- A full rewrite of the manuscript for clarity, structure, and language quality.
- A stronger focus on FCI as the target instrument.
- Inclusion of results using actual FCI observations, where available.
- Improved use of validation data and error characterization.
With serious revision, the study has the potential to make a valuable contribution.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3605-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
139 | 55 | 7 | 201 | 11 | 6 |
- HTML: 139
- PDF: 55
- XML: 7
- Total: 201
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1