Assessing the influence of different validation protocols on Ocean Colour match-up analyses

Abstract Multiple approaches have been used by the Ocean Colour community for validating satellite-derived products using in situ data, with most of them derived from mainly two approaches, one suggested by Bailey and Werdell (2006) (BW06) and one suggested by Zibordi et al. (2009a) (Z09), each with a different set of quality checking and spatiotemporal collocation criteria. The question remains what sort of information is added or missed when choosing one over the other. In this work, the differences among validation approaches were determined by using a common dataset of in situ and satellite data. The match-up exercise was separated into two groups of datasets based on the spatial resolution of the sensors to be validated. Sentinel-3A/OLCI data were selected as a representation of medium spatial resolution sensors, and two validation approaches were selected to this match-up dataset. The high spatial resolution sensors were represented by Sentinel-2A/MSI data, and three validation approaches were tested. Data from the AERONET-OC network were chosen as the common in situ dataset. For Sentinel-3A/OLCI, the number of match-ups varies depending on the validation approach used. Bailey and Werdell (2006) produces 20% more match-ups for Sentinel-3A/OLCI due to its more relaxed filtering criteria compared to the criteria applied by Zibordi et al. (2009a) . The validation metrics vary between different validation methods giving a different impression of accuracy of the satellite products. Also, the satellite data selected by BW06 have a statistical distribution with a higher median and standard deviation when compared to Z09. Similar findings are also confirmed for the match-up analysis conducted for Sentinel-2A/MSI. Therefore, although a common reference dataset was used, the validation statistical results were influenced by the validation approach selected. This does not suggest that one validation protocol is better than the other, but it implies that validation statistics reported in different studies may not always be directly comparable. Additionally, it was determined that BW06 could be a better fit when trying to obtain a sufficient number of match-ups for calibration purposes in the shortest time.