<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/amt-14-7069-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Ground mobile observation system for measuring multisurface microwave
emissivity</article-title><alt-title>Ground mobile observation system for surface emissivity</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Ground mobile observation system for surface emissivity}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{W.~He et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>He</surname><given-names>Wenying</given-names></name>
          <email>hwy@mail.iap.ac.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Hongbin</given-names></name>
          <email>chb@mail.iap.ac.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Xuan</surname><given-names>Yuejian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Jun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Duan</surname><given-names>Minzheng</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Nan</surname><given-names>Weidong</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Key Laboratory of Middle Atmosphere and Global Environment Observation, Institute of Atmospheric Physics,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Xianghe Observatory of Whole Atmosphere, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Xianghe 065400, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Wenying He (hwy@mail.iap.ac.cn) and Hongbin Chen (chb@mail.iap.ac.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>11</day><month>November</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>14</volume>
      <issue>11</issue>
      <fpage>7069</fpage><lpage>7078</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>4</day><month>June</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>5</day><month>July</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>2</day><month>September</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>15</day><month>September</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Wenying He et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e146">Large microwave surface emissivities with a highly heterogeneous
distribution and the relatively small hydrometeor signal over land make it
challenging to use satellite microwave data to retrieve precipitation and to
be assimilated into numerical models. To better understand the microwave
emissivity over land surfaces, we designed and established a ground
observation system for the in situ observation of microwave emissivities
over several typical surfaces. The major components of the system include a
dual-frequency polarized ground microwave radiometer, a mobile observation
platform, and auxiliary sensors to measure the surface temperature and soil
temperature and moisture; moreover, observation fields are designed
comprising five different land surfaces.</p>

      <p id="d1e149">Based on the observed data from the mobile system, we preliminarily
investigated the variations in the surface microwave emissivity over
different land surfaces. The results show that the horizontally polarized
emissivity is more sensitive to land surface variability than the
vertically polarized emissivity is: the former decreases to 0.75 over cement
and increases to 0.90 over sand and bare soil and up to 0.97 over grass. The
corresponding emissivity polarization difference is obvious over water
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and cement (approximately 0.25) but reduces to 0.1 over
sand and 0.05 over bare soil and almost 0.01 or close to zero over grass;
this trend is similar to that of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization difference. At
different elevation angles, the horizontally/vertically polarized
emissivities over land surfaces obviously increase/slightly decrease with
increasing elevation angles but exhibit the opposite trend over water.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e182">The land surface microwave emissivity varies but is generally high
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.90) and thus generates strong surface radiance; however,
this strong surface radiance obscures radiance from the atmosphere and
hydrometeors, making it more difficult to assimilate and precisely retrieve
atmospheric parameters using satellite microwave data over land (McNally et
al., 2000; Karbou et al., 2005; Schwartz et al., 2012). Moreover, due to
complex variations affected by many surface factors, such as soil type,
wetness, vegetation type, and surface roughness, the land surface emissivity
is poorly understood. Hence, the land surface microwave emissivity
constitutes a major parameter limiting the application of spaceborne
microwave data over land.</p>
      <p id="d1e192">Microwave emissivity models have only been developed for a limited range of
frequencies and surface conditions. For example, the emissivity over bare
soil was modeled at lower frequencies, and the soil dielectric constants
were obtained from ground-based measurements (Wang and Schmugge, 1980). The
emissivity over the vegetation canopy was simulated using a radiative
transfer model with a large number of canopy optical parameters (Mo and
Schmugge, 1987; Isaacs et al., 1989; Fung, 1994). Weng (2001) developed a
microwave land emissivity model to quantify the<?pagebreak page7070?> emissivity over various
surface conditions, including snow, deserts, and vegetation. Xie et al. (2017) developed a parameterized soil surface emissivity model for bare soil
surfaces, and compared with Weng's model, results reflected the reduced
overall errors, especially for horizontal polarization. Ultimately, the
microwave emissivity of land surfaces is determined mainly by the soil
dielectric constant, which is influenced by the physical temperature, soil
texture and moisture content, and vegetation structure and type. As a result
of these complicated parameters with numerous uncertainties, establishing a
common physical emissivity model and accurately obtaining emissivity
estimates by using only an emissivity model remain challenging.</p>
      <p id="d1e195">Satellite observations offering extensive coverage have been used to
estimate the regional and global distributions of land surface emissivity
since the 1990s (Prigent et al., 2000; Moncet et al., 2011). To avoid the
impacts of the complex variability of clouds and precipitation in the
atmosphere, only the brightness temperatures observed by spaceborne
microwave instruments under clear-sky conditions are generally selected to
calculate the land surface microwave emissivity. Jones and Vonder Haar (1997) used SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave Imager) microwave observations
and GOES/VISSR (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite/Visible
Infrared Spin-Scan Radiometer) infrared data that were closely matched in
both space and time to retrieve the microwave land emissivity over the
central United States and utilized the infrared data with a constant
infrared emissivity of 0.98 to calculate the land skin temperature (LST)
under clear-sky conditions. Further, Ruston and Vonder Haar (2004) directly
employed spatially varying infrared surface emissivities in the retrieval of
LST to calculate the microwave emissivity and discovered that the
atmospheric-corrected microwave surface emissivity is valuable for
determining land surface characteristics but is sensitive to rain events.
Prigent et al. (1997, 1999) calculated the land surface microwave emissivity
over Africa, some parts of Europe, and West Asia by combining SSM/I data with
LST observations provided by ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud
Climatology Project). With subsequently improved ISCCP LST and cloud product
data, Prigent et al. (2006) presented a global land surface microwave
emissivity database retrieved from 10 years of SSM/I data and plotted the
monthly average land surface microwave emissivity onto a geographic map. In
their work, the microwave emissivity retrieval was based primarily on
radiative transfer calculations, in which infrared data were used to
determine the LST under clear-sky conditions, and atmospheric sounding data
were used to take the effects of atmospheric attenuation into account.
Nevertheless, due to the complexity and variability of clouds and
atmospheric precipitation, land surface microwave emissivity estimates
derived from satellite observations are available only under clear-sky
conditions. Moreover, the cloud screening and LST retrieval methods still
contain numerous uncertainties, which represent the main sources of errors
in emissivity calculations.</p>
      <p id="d1e198">At present, the accuracy of surface emissivity estimates calculated from
either emissivity models or satellite observations is limited by the
complexity of the land surface and the variability of vegetation types and
soil moisture. Another important limitation is availability and accuracy of
necessary input parameters on a global scale. Hence, surface emissivity
calculations need to be verified and improved with more in situ observation
data.</p>
      <p id="d1e202">To better understand the variation characteristics of surface emissivity
with surface conditions, Ulaby et al. (1986) combined field experiments and
theoretical research and revealed that the land surface microwave specific
emissivity is strongly correlated with the distributions of soil moisture
and vegetation. In addition, a few observation experiments using
ground-based microwave radiometers have been carried out since the 1990s to
study the variation characteristics of emissivity over different surfaces
(Njoku and O'Neill, 1982; Matzler, 1990, 1994; Calvet, 1995). More recently, in situ passive microwave radiometer
measurements over snow cover and sub-Arctic frozen soil have been used to
validate empirical emission models (Lemmetyinen et al., 2015; Montpetit et
al., 2018). Additionally, an aircraft-flown microwave radiometer was used to
directly observe surface emissivity over forests, crops, snow, and ice to
analyze the sensitivity of those emissivities to the view angle, frequency,
measurement time, and surface characteristics (Hewison, 2001; Wigneron et
al., 1997; Hewison and English, 1999).</p>
      <p id="d1e205">The observation mode of a microwave radiometer in a field experiment is an
important consideration. Usually, ground-based radiometers are fixed when
scanning the observed field; for example, they can be mounted on a truck or
a tower (Matzler, 1990; Lemmetyinen et al., 2015), allowing the instrument
to better determine the temporal evolution of surface emissivity over a single
type of land-cover area. In contrast, using a mobile mode, such as airborne
and mobile sled-based radiometers (Morland et al., 2000, 2003; Lemmetyinen et al., 2015;
Montpetit et al., 2018), can better reveal the spatial evolution of surface
emissivity over different land-cover areas, but it is not easy to obtain
long-term emissivity observations due to the high cost and effort.</p>
      <p id="d1e208">To obtain the long-term temporal evolution of surface emissivity over
different types of surfaces simultaneously, we proposed and developed a
ground mobile observation system to enhance in situ microwave emissivity
observations. Long-term continuous emissivity field experiments can help to
more accurately understand the characteristics of passive microwave
polarized emissivities over typical land surfaces, form a benchmark for
verifying the retrieved emissivities from satellite or emission models, and
establish an emissivity parameterization scheme for a given surface in
radiance assimilation. The outline of this paper is as follows: the design
of the ground mobile observation system for measuring surface emissivity is
introduced in Sect. 2; the data and method used for the emissivity
calculations are described in Sect. 3; the surface emissivity estimates
obtained directly from the<?pagebreak page7071?> observation system are discussed preliminarily in
Sect. 4; and a final short summary is given in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Ground mobile observation system for surface microwave emissivity</title>
      <p id="d1e219">To obtain the surface emissivity over several typical surfaces
simultaneously, we designed a ground mobile observation system to carry out
long-term field experiments over five test plots. Figure 1 is an on-site photo of
the observation system operating at the Xianghe observation site
(116.98<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 39.76<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N), Hebei Province, China. As shown
in Fig. 1, the mobile observation system consists of five main parts: a
dual-frequency (18.7 and 36.5 GHz), dual-polarized ground-based microwave
radiometer to observe the surface and sky radiances, a mobile platform to
move back and forth along a track, and three auxiliary sensors to measure
the surface temperature and soil temperature and moisture. The observation
field includes five test plots, namely, water, cement, sand, bare soil, and
grass. From the observation system, we can directly obtain surface microwave
emissivity estimates more accurately than is possible from satellite data or
emissivity models, which is important to properly understand the variation
characteristics of land microwave emissivities and to improve the emissivity
parameterization schemes used in models.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e242">On-site photo of the surface microwave emissivity observation system
operating over various surfaces at the Xianghe site, China.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Ground-based microwave radiometer</title>
      <p id="d1e258">The core device of the observation system is a dual-frequency (18.7 and 36.5 GHz), dual-polarized (horizontal and vertical) microwave radiometer
(RPG-4CH-DP) produced by Radiometer Physics GmbH, Germany. The RPG-4CH-DP
radiometer is a high-performance instrument with a direct detection receiver
and a completely automatic calibration system. The radiometer is mounted on
an accurate elevation/azimuth positioner so that the whole system can
perform scans in any direction from the sky to the ground, thereby realizing
complex scanning schemes, such as all-sky monitoring and all-round
monitoring of the ground. The RPG-4CH-DP can distinguish cloud/raindrop
particles during precipitation and monitor soil moisture and vegetation
parameters by using signals with different polarizations. Both frequencies
of 18.7 and 36.5 GHz have been widely combined to detect snow depth and
snow water content and are frequently used in most spaceborne microwave
imagers, such as the SSM/I, AMSR-E (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer
for EOS), and GMI (GPM Microwave Imager) sensors. The directly observed
surface emissivities at these two frequencies can provide highly accurate
references for the verification and assimilation of spaceborne microwave
observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e261">The RPG-4CH-DP radiometer has a comparable half-power beam width of
approximately 6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a calibration accuracy of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 K.
Currently, the height of the instrument above the ground is 2.5 m, which
results in a half-power footprint width of 0.22 m on average. More details
regarding the instrument specifications for the RPG-4CH-DP are shown in
Table 1.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e283">Instrument specifications.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Specification</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Radiometric resolution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.2 K rms (1.0 s integration time)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Optical resolution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HPBW: 6.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (sidelobe level <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dBc)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Absolute system stability</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.0 K</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Receiver and antenna thermal stabilization</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Accuracy <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>K</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pointing speed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Elevation: 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, azimuth: 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Radiometric range</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0–350 K</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Operating temperature range</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Power consumption</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">350</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W on average, 500 W peak</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Weight</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">105 kg for receiver modules, 300 kg for positioner</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e503">Currently, the RPG-4CH-DP provides only the basic brightness temperature
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) data in four channels without other related products. By incorporating the
auxiliary observations from the observation system, we broadened the
application of the instrument, denoted RPG-XCH-DP, thereby providing not
only the basic microwave radiance, but also the complex surface emissivity.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Mobile system (platform)</title>
      <p id="d1e526">The multitarget mobile system comprises a track, a mobile platform, a
driving system, and a control unit. As the sketch of the mobile system in
Fig. 2 shows, the 25 m track is parallel to the test plots with an
observation interval of 0.3 m. The mobile platform placed on the track is a
metal box 4 m in length, 0.8 m in height, and 1.0 m in depth. The driving
system includes a stepper motor, transmission mechanism, and communication
cable connected to the mobile platform and power supply. The control unit
consists of a single-chip microcomputer, timer, and stepper motor driver,
which can set the moving time and control the operation of the driving
device. The control device is installed on the mobile platform and connects
both driving devices.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e531">Sketch of the mobile platform.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e540">In this experiment, to obtain the microwave emissivity over different
surfaces in near-simultaneous time, the RPG-4CH-DP is mounted on the mobile
platform and moves back and forth along the track. The communication system
for receiving the data and the power supply are placed in the metal box.
According to the commands from the single-chip microcomputer and the driving
force from the stepper motor,<?pagebreak page7072?> the mobile platform moves along the track
similar to a small train, and the onboard radiometer scans the five test plots
at fixed times every day.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Observation field and auxiliary data</title>
      <p id="d1e551">Figure 3 shows a sketch of the observation field, including the five test plots
distributed along the 25 m track. Currently, five surface types are considered
in the observation field, namely, water, cement, sand, soil, and grass. For
the water body, a plastic pool 6 m long and 2.4 m wide is used to hold the
water. The adjacent cement surface consists of a 2 m wide footpath. The
remaining three plots of sand, bare soil, and grass are the same size
(approximately 6 m long by 4 m wide) and are separated by a distance of
approximately 2 m.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e556">Sketch of the observation field (including five test plots: water,
cement, sand, bare soil, and grass), where <?xmltex \hack{\protect}?><?xmltex \igopts{height=7.113189pt}?><inline-graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-g01.png"/> denotes the position of a touching switch.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e571">To scan each plot at the same place at a fixed time, five touching switches
corresponding to the center of each plot are fixed on the track to stop the
moving platform so that the radiometer can scan the same place for a couple
of minutes. By using this mobile platform, the ground-based radiometer can
scan multiple surfaces almost simultaneously (i.e., within 1 h), thereby
providing valuable measurements for understanding the variation in surface
emissivity over different land surfaces with different characteristics.</p>
      <p id="d1e575">The auxiliary data include mainly the surface temperature, soil temperature,
and soil moisture. Five thermometers with a PT100 temperature sensor made by
Honeywell are placed separately on each test plot to measure their
surface temperature. In addition, an SI-111 precision infrared radiometer
developed by Apogee Instruments Inc. is fixed on a stand of the RPG-4CH-DP
radiometer to obtain the surface temperature of each plot while the
microwave radiometer is moving. Furthermore, a set of soil temperature and
moisture sensors is fixed at three soil depths, 5, 10, and 20 cm, to
detect the subsurface soil temperature and humidity. To monitor the
real-time working situation of the whole observation system, a digital video
camera is installed near the field to record the states of the mobile
platform and radiometer as well as changes in the weather, such as the
presence of cloud cover, rain, or snow.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Scanning mode</title>
      <p id="d1e586">To directly obtain the surface emissivity, a combined mode of ground
observations at multiple elevation angles and zenith observations is
designed, in which the former monitors mainly the surface radiance, while the
latter monitors the sky radiance in the same 1 h period.</p>
      <p id="d1e589">The ground observation mode is illustrated in Fig. 4. The mobile platform is
triggered every hour, and the microwave radiometer operates using the ground
scanning mode at this time. The scan is performed from the horizon
(0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) to the ground, and the elevation angle is defined as the
angle between the scanning direction and the horizontal. A negative<?pagebreak page7073?> value
indicates an angle below the horizon, which is equivalent to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the incident angle, an important parameter
for describing spaceborne radiometer scanning. The radiometer is 2.5 m above
the ground, so it can scan each test plot with a length of 6 m when the elevation angle is between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">72</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, as shown in Fig. 4. The valid elevation
angle range for water is different due to the different length of the pool.
To determine the surface emissivity variation with the elevation angle, the
radiometer is set to scan each test plot with an angle interval of
3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, an angle interval of
5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and then back to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to scan the test plot repeatedly during the ground
observation mode. To acquire ground observations over all five test plots
within 1 h, each plot is given 9 min; in other words, the mobile
platform will move to the cement plot at 9 min, the sand plot at 18 min, the
bare soil plot at 27 min, and finally the grass plot at 36 min. After
finishing the ground observations in all five test plots, the mobile platform
will begin to move back at 45 min and reach the beginning location after
approximately 6 min. During the return trip, the scan mode changes to the
zenith observation mode so that the radiometer scans from the ground to the
sky. When the elevation angle is raised to 90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the radiometer
will continually acquire zenith observations for approximately 5 min to
obtain the sky radiance. After obtaining these zenith observations, the
elevation angle changes from the zenith observation mode to the ground
observation mode at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> so that the radiometer is already in the
ground observation mode when the next measurement cycle arrives. In this
way, the radiometer on the mobile platform can obtain not only the ground
radiance over five test plots, but also the sky radiance within a 1 h period.
Here, we assume that 1 h is short enough to neglect the minute-scale
differences in the surface and sky radiance, and thus, the mobile system can
obtain the microwave emissivity over different surfaces nearly
simultaneously.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e775">Sketch of the combined scanning mode of the microwave radiometer.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Data and method</title>
      <p id="d1e793">Three types of observation data are obtained from the field experiment: the
microwave brightness temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at different scanning angles from the
ground microwave radiometer; the surface temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the five test
plots measured from the ground thermometers and infrared sensor; and the
soil temperature and moisture at three depths in the sand and bare soil
plots.</p>
      <p id="d1e818">When the ground microwave radiometer scans the surface, the measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> comes
mainly from two contributions: that of upward radiation from the surface and
that of the reflected downward atmospheric radiance. Thus, the measured <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
can be approximately expressed by Eq. (1):
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M43" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sky</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface emissivity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface
temperature, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sky</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the radiance from the sky. From Eq. (1), the
surface emissivity can be directly calculated using Eq. (2) by combining the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> contributions from the surface and sky with the surface temperature
synchronously measured from the infrared sensor in the observation system.
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M48" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sky</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sky</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e963">It is noted here that Eq. (1) is assumed for specular reflection and was
used in previous similar observation studies (Lemmetyinen et al., 2015;
Montpetit et al., 2018), so we used Eqs. (1) and (2) to calculate surface
emissivity in this work. The dual-polarized radiometer can provide both
vertical and horizonal polarization information, so the ideal and uniform
Lambertian surface is too simple, and the bidirectional reflectance (BRDF)
surface seems more complex, and the specular reflection is a good option.
The results derived from this assumption will be further investigated by
combining more auxiliary observations in the actual surface of test plots.</p>
      <p id="d1e966">Through applying the ground mobile observation system for surface microwave
emissivity and combining the video camera records with the soil temperature
and moisture measurements, we can not only directly obtain highly accurate
surface microwave emissivity observations over different test plots, but also
investigate the variation characteristics of the surface emissivity under
different weather conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Preliminary results</title>
      <p id="d1e977">Considering both the viewing field of the microwave radiometer and the size
of the test plots, the elevation angle range between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">65</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is chosen for observing the land test plots (cement, sand,
soil, and grass), while elevation angles between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">65</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are valid for observing the water surface. Here, we focus on
the variations in the radiance and surface emissivity over the five test plots
during the observations recorded in October 2018 under clear-sky conditions.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Radiance</title>
      <p id="d1e1043">Since a scanning angle of 36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is equivalent to an incident angle
of 54<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> used for many spaceborne microwave imagers, such as AMSR-E
(55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) or SSM/I (53<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), we first compare the variation
in the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over different surfaces at an elevation angle of
36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. As Fig. 5a shows, the changes in the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 36.5 GHz
in horizontal (Tb36h) and vertical (Tb36v) polarization over the four land
surfaces within 24 h (Beijing time, BJT) are quite similar, with smaller
values at night and larger values in the afternoon. Less variation in the radiance is
noted at Tb36v (not shown), but more significant variations are detected at
Tb36h over the four surfaces (Fig. 5a): the observed Tb36h from grass is
approximately 270–285 K but varies within 240–270 K over sand<?pagebreak page7074?> and bare soil
and reaches only 200–230 K for cement. The observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 18.75 GHz within
24 h shows similar variations, with only slight changes among the different
land surfaces. Likewise, the corresponding polarization differences (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within 24 h are very similar to one another, so both DTb18vh and DTb36vh at 02:00 (BJT) are shown in Fig. 5b, revealing a slight difference (close to
zero) for grass but considerably larger differences for water and cement
(almost up to 70 K for water) and smaller differences over sand and soil
(below 30 K). In addition, the values of DTb18vh are larger than those of
DTb36vh. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization difference is more significant over water than
over land and is closely related to the roughness of the land surface. In
addition, the roughness of grass is obviously larger than that of the other
three land surfaces and thus scatters more surface radiance and reduces the
polarization difference. Therefore, the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization differences
over the different surfaces shown in Fig. 5b appear reasonable, and the
given quantitative polarization differences for certain surfaces can serve
as a valid reference for identifying land surfaces and water bodies.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1175">Variations in the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization differences <bold>(b)</bold> over different surfaces in October 2018.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1212">To study the variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at more than a single angle, Fig. 6a shows the
changes in the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the elevation angle ranging from
24 to 65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over the four land surfaces. The horizontally
polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is clearly more sensitive to the land surface type than the
vertically polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with increasing elevation angle; in particular,
Tb36h rises rapidly from 180 to 240 K over cement but slowly increases
from 240 to 260 K over sand and bare soil and remains almost constant over
grass. In contrast, the variations in the vertically polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
increasing elevation angle are similar among the land surfaces and are
smaller than those in the horizontally polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, showing a decreasing
trend from 280 to 260 K over different surfaces. The variations in the
observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over water are presented in Fig. 6b. Different from the above
observations over land surfaces, the vertically polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over water
obviously reduces from 200 to 140 K with increasing elevation angle, while
the horizontally polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> slowly rises from 100 to 120 K, almost
opposite to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization variations over land surfaces. The
corresponding changes in the polarization difference of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 18.75 GHz
(DTb18vh <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Tb18v<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>Tb18h) over all five classes of surfaces are further plotted
in Fig. 6c. In general, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization difference decreases with
increasing elevation angle, and the varied ranges with the elevation angle
over the five classes surfaces in Fig. 6c are similar to those in Fig. 5b; thus,
the decreasing trend is most obvious over water and cement and less evident
over grass with increasing elevation angle. The variations of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
polarization difference at 36.5 GHz with the elevation angle are similar to
those at 18.75 GHz over all five test plots.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1386">Variations in the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over different land surfaces <bold>(a)</bold> and water surface <bold>(b)</bold> as well as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarized difference <bold>(c)</bold> with the elevation angle in October 2018. The vertical dotted line corresponds to an elevation angle of 36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page7075?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Surface microwave emissivity</title>
      <p id="d1e1446">Combining the surface and sky <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> radiance with the surface temperature
derived from the infrared sensor, the surface emissivity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
derived from Eq. (2). Since the diurnal variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is more
constant and less significant than that of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> radiance, the surface
emissivity observed at 02:00 (BJT) is chosen for the following
investigation. First, the polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at both 18.75 and 36.5 GHz and their polarization differences at an elevation angle of
36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are compared in Fig. 7a. The vertically polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is clearly much larger than the horizontally
polarized <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
values at the same frequencies are close, but the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values over
water are smaller than those over the four land surfaces due to quite
different dielectric constants. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values obviously
differ among the four land surfaces, although their corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values are relatively similar, exceeding 0.95, which indicates that
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is more sensitive to land surface variability than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is lower than 0.75 over
cement but increases to 0.90 over sand and bare soil and up to 0.97 over
grass. Thus, the emissivity polarization difference (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shown in Fig. 7b is obvious over water
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and cement (approximately 0.25) but reduces to 0.1 over
sand and 0.05 over bare soil and almost 0.01 or close to zero over grass;
this trend is similar to that of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization difference shown in
Fig. 5b. Emissivity polarization difference is more significant over water
than over land due to different surface reflectivity and dielectric constant
properties. Among four land surfaces, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over cement is most obvious and over grass is slight, which is
closely related to land surface roughness. The polarized difference of both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and emissivity demonstrated that surface roughness over grass is obviously
larger than that over the other three land surfaces, especially smooth cement
surfaces, thus generating more volume scattering by vegetation and weakening the
polarization difference over grass.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1682">Variations in the surface emissivity <bold>(a)</bold> and emissivity polarization
differences <bold>(b)</bold> over different land surfaces at 02:00 (BJT) in October 2018.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1697">In addition to investigating the variations at a fixed angle, the variations
in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at multiple elevation angles over the four land surfaces are
compared in Fig. 8a. Because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is more sensitive to
surface type than to water, when the elevation angle changes from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> clearly rises from
0.65 to 0.85 over cement, followed by sand and bare soil, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increasing from 0.85 to 0.95, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is constant
at 0.95 over grass. The corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values over the
four land surfaces are closer and exhibit a slightly decreasing trend within
the range of 0.9–1.0 with increasing elevation angle.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1785">Variations in the surface emissivity <bold>(a, b)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization differences <bold>(c)</bold> over different surfaces with increasing
elevation angle in October 2018.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/7069/2021/amt-14-7069-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page7076?><p id="d1e1807"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Different from land surfaces, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values over water in Fig. 8b
show considerably different variation trends with the elevation angle: when
the elevation angle changes from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">65</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> clearly reduces from 0.7 to 0.5, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> slightly increases near to 0.4. The corresponding
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization differences (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over five surfaces (Fig. 8c) present a decreasing trend with increasing
elevation angle, and the larger the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization difference
in Fig. 7b is, the greater the variation with the elevation angle in Fig. 8c
is; i.e., the decreasing trend is most obvious over water and smooth cement
but slightly changes over grass with increasing elevation angle. The
variation in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ε</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization difference at 36.5 GHz with the
elevation angle is similar to that at 18.75 GHz over all five test plots
(results not shown).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Summary</title>
      <p id="d1e1921">In this paper, we introduce a ground mobile observation system for directly
obtaining surface microwave emissivity estimates over five types of
surfaces: water, cement, sand, soil, and grass. The mobile observation system
consists mainly of a dual-polarized ground-based microwave radiometer, a
mobile platform, and auxiliary sensors, and the observation field comprises
5 test plots.</p>
      <p id="d1e1924">Based on the observed data from the mobile system, we preliminarily
investigated the variation characteristics of the surface microwave
emissivity over the five different land surfaces. The results show that the
horizontally polarized emissivity is more sensitive to land surface type
than the vertically polarized emissivity is: the former decreases to 0.75
over cement and increases to 0.90 over sand and bare soil and up to 0.97
over grass. The observed polarization difference is obvious over water
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and cement (approximately 0.25) but reduces to 0.1 over
sand and 0.05 over bare soil and almost 0.01 or close to zero over grass;
this trend is similar to that of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> polarization difference. For
different elevation angles, the horizontally/vertically polarized
emissivities over the land surfaces obviously increase/slightly decrease
with increasing elevation angle but exhibit the opposite trend over water.
The emissivity polarization difference decreases with increasing elevation
angle, and the larger the emissivity polarization difference is over a
certain surface, the greater the variation with the elevation angle.</p>
      <p id="d1e1948">We developed a ground mobile observation system for measuring the microwave
emissivity over multiple surfaces, and the system has worked stably since
September 2018. The preliminary results from our observation system partly
reflect similar variation trends to those reported by previous surface
emissivity experiments, and some are more related to the variation in
emissivity at different elevation angles. In future research, we will carry
out further analyses and refine the emissivity parameterization scheme for
given surfaces based on long-term observations.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e1955">The observation data can be made available upon request from the corresponding author.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e1961">HC and YX were the main designers of the observation system. JL, MD, and WN contributed to the sensors' installment and data collection. WH mainly did the data analysis and wrote the draft of the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e1967">The contact author has declared that neither they nor their co-authors have any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e1974">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e1980">We thank the staff at the Xianghe site for their maintenance
work on the microwave radiometer and the ground mobile observation system.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e1985">This research has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41575033), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2017YFC1501700), and the Instrument Function Development Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences (project no. E066193).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e1991">This paper was edited by S. Joseph Munchak and reviewed by Yanqiu Zhu and two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Calvet, J. C., Wigneron, J. P., Chanzy, A., Raju, S., and Laguerre, L.:
Microwave dielectric proporeties of a silt-loam at high frequencies, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 33, 634–642, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.387579" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/36.387579</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Fung, A. K.: Microwave Scattering and Emission Models and Their Applications, Artech House Publishers, Norwood, MA, ISBN 100890065233, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hewison, T. J.: Airborne measurements of forest and agricultural land surface
emissivity at millimeter wavelengths, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote.,
39, 393–400, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.905247" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/36.905247</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hewison, T. J. and English S. J.: Airborne retrievals of snow and ice
surface emissivity at millimeter wavelengths, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 37, 1871–1887, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.774700" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/36.774700</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Isaacs, R. G., Jin, Y. Q., Worsham, R. D., Deblonde, G., and Falcone, V. J.: The RADTRAN microwave surface emission models, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 27, 433–440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.29563" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/36.29563</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jones, A. S. and Vonder Haar, T. H.: Retrieval of microwave surface emittance
over land using coincident microwave and infrared satellite
measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 13609–13626, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00797" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/97JD00797</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Karbou, F., Aires, F., Prigent, C., and Eymard, L.: Potential of Advanced
Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A) and AMSU-B measurements for atmospheric
temperature and humidity profiling over land, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D07109, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005318" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005318</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lemmetyinen, J., Derksen, C., Toose, P., Proksch, C., Pulliainen, J., Kontu,
A., Rautiainen, K., Seppänen, J., and Hallikainen, M.: Simulating seasonally and spatially varying snow cover brightness temperature using HUT snow emission model and retrieval of a microwave effective grain size, Remote
Sens. Environ., 156, 71–95, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.09.016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2014.09.016</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Matzler, C.: Seasonal evolution of microwave radiation from an oat field,
Remote Sens. Environ., 31, 161–173, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(90)90086-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0034-4257(90)90086-2</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Matzler, C.: Passive microwave signatures of landscapes in winter, Meteorol.
Atmos. Phys., 54, 241–260, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01030063" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF01030063</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McNally, A. P., Derber, J. C., Wu, W. S., and Katz, B. B.: The use of TOVS level-1B
radiances in the NCEP SSI analysis system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 689–724, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656315" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49712656315</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mo, T. and Schmugge, T. J.: A parameterization of the effect of surface
roughness on microwave emission, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 4, 481–486, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.1987.289860" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.1987.289860</ext-link>, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Moncet, J. L., Liang, P., and Galantowicz, J. F.,: Land surface
microwave emissivities derived from AMSR-E and MODIS measurements with
advanced quality control, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D16104, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015429" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD015429</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Montpetit, B., Royer, A., Roy, A., and Langlois, A.: In-situ passive microwave
emission model parameterization of sub-arctic frozen organic soils, Remote
Sens. Environ., 205, 112–118, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.10.033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2017.10.033</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Morland, J. C., Grimes, D. I. F., Dugdale, G., and Hewison, T. J.: The Estimation of
Land Surface Emissivities at 24 GHz to 157 GHz Using Remotely Sensed
Aircraft Data, Remote Sens. Environ., 73, 323–336,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00108-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00108-5</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Morland, J. C., Metcalfe, J., and Walker, A.: Microwave remote sensing of soil
moisture in southern Ontario: Aircraft and satellite measurements at 19 and
37 GHz, Radio Sci., 38, 8073, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002RS002677" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002RS002677</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Njoku, E. G. and O'Neill, P. E.: Multifrequency microwave radiometer
measurements of soil moisture, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 20, 468–475,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.1982.350412" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.1982.350412</ext-link>, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Prigent, C., Rossow, W. B., and Matthews, E.: Microwave land surface emissivities
estimated from SSM/I observations, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 21867–21890,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD01360" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/97JD01360</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Prigent, C., Rossow, W. B., Matthews, E., and Marticorena, B.: Microwave
radiometric signatures of different surface types in deserts, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 12147–12158, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900153" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JD900153</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Prigent, C., Wigneron, J. P., Rossow, W. B., and Pardo-Carrionet, J. R.:
Frequency and angular variations of land surface microwave emissivities: Can
we estimate SSM/T and AMSU emissivities from SSM/I emissivities?, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 38, 2373–2386, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.868893" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/36.868893</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Prigent, C., Aires, F., and Rossow, W. B.: Land surface microwave emissivities
over the globe for a decade, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 1573–1584,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-11-1573" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-87-11-1573</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ruston, R. C. and Vonder Haar, T. H.: Characterization of summertime microwave
emissivity from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager over the conterminous
United States, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D19103, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004890" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD004890</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page7078?><ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schwartz, C. S., Liu, Z. Q., Chen, Y., and Huang, X. Y.: Impact of assimilating microwave radiances with a limited-area ensemble data assimilation system on
forecasts of Typhoon Morakot, Weather Forecast., 27, 424–437,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00033.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/WAF-D-11-00033.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Ulaby, F. T., Moore, R. K., and Fung, A. K.: Microwave Remote Sensing Active and Passive-Volume III: From Theory to Applications, Artech House, Norwood, ISBN 0890061920, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Wang, J. R. and Schmugge, T. J. : An empirical model for the complex dielectric permittivity of soil as a function of water content, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., GE-18, 288–295, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weng, F., Yan, B., and Grody, N. C.: A microwave land emissivity model, J.
Geophys. Res., 106, 20115–20123, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD900019</ext-link>,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wigneron, J. P., Guyon, D., Calvet, J. C., Courrieer, G., and Bruguier, N.:
Monitoring coniferous forest characteristics using a multifrequency
microwave radiometry, Remote Sens. Environ., 60, 299–310,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(96)00212-X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0034-4257(96)00212-X</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xie, Y., Shi, J., Ji, D., Zhong, J., and Fan, S.: A Parameterized Microwave
Emissivity Model for Bare Soil Surfaces, Remote Sens.-Basel., 9, 155–170,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9020155" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs9020155</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Ground mobile observation system for measuring multisurface microwave emissivity</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Calvet, J. C., Wigneron, J. P., Chanzy, A., Raju, S., and Laguerre, L.:
Microwave dielectric proporeties of a silt-loam at high frequencies, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 33, 634–642, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.387579" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/36.387579</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Fung, A. K.: Microwave Scattering and Emission Models and Their Applications, Artech House Publishers, Norwood, MA, ISBN 100890065233, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Hewison, T. J.: Airborne measurements of forest and agricultural land surface
emissivity at millimeter wavelengths, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote.,
39, 393–400, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.905247" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/36.905247</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Hewison, T. J. and English S. J.: Airborne retrievals of snow and ice
surface emissivity at millimeter wavelengths, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 37, 1871–1887, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.774700" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/36.774700</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Isaacs, R. G., Jin, Y. Q., Worsham, R. D., Deblonde, G., and Falcone, V. J.: The RADTRAN microwave surface emission models, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 27, 433–440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.29563" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/36.29563</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, A. S. and Vonder Haar, T. H.: Retrieval of microwave surface emittance
over land using coincident microwave and infrared satellite
measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 13609–13626, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00797" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00797</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Karbou, F., Aires, F., Prigent, C., and Eymard, L.: Potential of Advanced
Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A) and AMSU-B measurements for atmospheric
temperature and humidity profiling over land, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D07109, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005318" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005318</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Lemmetyinen, J., Derksen, C., Toose, P., Proksch, C., Pulliainen, J., Kontu,
A., Rautiainen, K., Seppänen, J., and Hallikainen, M.: Simulating seasonally and spatially varying snow cover brightness temperature using HUT snow emission model and retrieval of a microwave effective grain size, Remote
Sens. Environ., 156, 71–95, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.09.016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.09.016</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Matzler, C.: Seasonal evolution of microwave radiation from an oat field,
Remote Sens. Environ., 31, 161–173, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(90)90086-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(90)90086-2</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Matzler, C.: Passive microwave signatures of landscapes in winter, Meteorol.
Atmos. Phys., 54, 241–260, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01030063" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01030063</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
McNally, A. P., Derber, J. C., Wu, W. S., and Katz, B. B.: The use of TOVS level-1B
radiances in the NCEP SSI analysis system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 689–724, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656315" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656315</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Mo, T. and Schmugge, T. J.: A parameterization of the effect of surface
roughness on microwave emission, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 4, 481–486, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.1987.289860" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.1987.289860</a>, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Moncet, J. L., Liang, P., and Galantowicz, J. F.,: Land surface
microwave emissivities derived from AMSR-E and MODIS measurements with
advanced quality control, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D16104, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015429" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015429</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Montpetit, B., Royer, A., Roy, A., and Langlois, A.: In-situ passive microwave
emission model parameterization of sub-arctic frozen organic soils, Remote
Sens. Environ., 205, 112–118, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.10.033" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.10.033</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Morland, J. C., Grimes, D. I. F., Dugdale, G., and Hewison, T. J.: The Estimation of
Land Surface Emissivities at 24&thinsp;GHz to 157&thinsp;GHz Using Remotely Sensed
Aircraft Data, Remote Sens. Environ., 73, 323–336,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00108-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00108-5</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Morland, J. C., Metcalfe, J., and Walker, A.: Microwave remote sensing of soil
moisture in southern Ontario: Aircraft and satellite measurements at 19 and
37&thinsp;GHz, Radio Sci., 38, 8073, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002RS002677" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002RS002677</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Njoku, E. G. and O'Neill, P. E.: Multifrequency microwave radiometer
measurements of soil moisture, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 20, 468–475,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.1982.350412" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.1982.350412</a>, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Prigent, C., Rossow, W. B., and Matthews, E.: Microwave land surface emissivities
estimated from SSM/I observations, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 21867–21890,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD01360" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD01360</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Prigent, C., Rossow, W. B., Matthews, E., and Marticorena, B.: Microwave
radiometric signatures of different surface types in deserts, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 12147–12158, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900153" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900153</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Prigent, C., Wigneron, J. P., Rossow, W. B., and Pardo-Carrionet, J. R.:
Frequency and angular variations of land surface microwave emissivities: Can
we estimate SSM/T and AMSU emissivities from SSM/I emissivities?, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote., 38, 2373–2386, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.868893" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/36.868893</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Prigent, C., Aires, F., and Rossow, W. B.: Land surface microwave emissivities
over the globe for a decade, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 1573–1584,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-11-1573" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-11-1573</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ruston, R. C. and Vonder Haar, T. H.: Characterization of summertime microwave
emissivity from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager over the conterminous
United States, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D19103, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004890" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004890</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Schwartz, C. S., Liu, Z. Q., Chen, Y., and Huang, X. Y.: Impact of assimilating microwave radiances with a limited-area ensemble data assimilation system on
forecasts of Typhoon Morakot, Weather Forecast., 27, 424–437,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00033.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00033.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Ulaby, F. T., Moore, R. K., and Fung, A. K.: Microwave Remote Sensing Active and Passive-Volume III: From Theory to Applications, Artech House, Norwood, ISBN 0890061920, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, J. R. and Schmugge, T. J. : An empirical model for the complex dielectric permittivity of soil as a function of water content, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., GE-18, 288–295, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Weng, F., Yan, B., and Grody, N. C.: A microwave land emissivity model, J.
Geophys. Res., 106, 20115–20123, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900019</a>,
2001.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Wigneron, J. P., Guyon, D., Calvet, J. C., Courrieer, G., and Bruguier, N.:
Monitoring coniferous forest characteristics using a multifrequency
microwave radiometry, Remote Sens. Environ., 60, 299–310,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(96)00212-X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(96)00212-X</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Xie, Y., Shi, J., Ji, D., Zhong, J., and Fan, S.: A Parameterized Microwave
Emissivity Model for Bare Soil Surfaces, Remote Sens.-Basel., 9, 155–170,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9020155" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9020155</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
