Abstract:Disaggregation of land surface temperature (DLST), the aim of which is to generate LSTs with fine resolution, has been attracting increasing attention since the 1980s. The past three decades have been witness to the emergence of DLST methods in large numbers, the accuracies of which were often assessed by comparing the disaggregated with fine spatial resolution LSTs using error indexes such as the root mean square error (RMSE). However, the majority of previous error indexes are, by their nature, insufficient for assessing the performances of DLST methods. This insufficiency is due in part to their lower competence at distinguishing the DLST error from LST retrieval errors and in part to their inability to remove the process controls resulting from different thermal contrasts, temperature units, and resolution ratios among different scenarios in which DLST is conducted. This is also because they are unable to denote the sharpening statuses of the DLST results (e.g., under- or over-sharpening). This status quo has made the evaluation of method performances challenging and sometimes unreliable.To better assess DLST method performances under diversified scenarios, we formulated five protocols, through which a simple yet flexible index (SIFI) was subsequently designed. The establishment of an SIFI includes the following four steps: (1) a detail-based evaluation, which is designed primarily to exclude the impacts of systematic deviations on estimated LSTs; (2) a Gaussian normalization, which is primarily intended to remove the differences in temperature units and thermal contrasts; (3) a triple comparison, with the aim of attenuating the influence of the difference in the resolution ratio in comparisons of method performances; and (4) a piecewise comparison, which is primarily scheduled to distinguish among the three sharpening statuses, under-sharpening, acceptable over-sharpening, and unacceptable over-sharpening. The evaluation ability of SIFI was compared with those of the RMSE, Erreur Relative Globale Adimensionnelle de Synthèse (ERGAS), and image quality index (Q) using simulation tests and actual thermal data. The results illustrate that SIFI generally outperforms the other indexes; it is able to mitigate the impacts from process errors and controls during evaluation and is able to indicate the sharpening statuses accurately. We believe this new index will likely promote the design of future DLST algorithms and procedures.

Short communication comments on ‘DISO: A rethink of Taylor diagram’

DISO: A rethink of Taylor diagram

A new diagram for performance evaluation of complex models

Evaluation of Metrics for Assessing Dipolar Climate Patterns in Climate Models

Evaluating Cloud Feedback Components in Observations and Their Representation in Climate Models

Adding Method of Delta-Four-stream Spherical Harmonic Expansion Approximation for Infrared Radiative Transfer Parameterization

The ARM Data-Oriented Metrics and Diagnostics Package for Climate Models A New Tool for Evaluating Climate Models with Field Data

Improving the Simulation of Permafrost Extent by Representing the Multi-Tiling Energy Budgets in ORCHIDEE-MICT Model

Multivariable Integrated Evaluation of Model Performance with the Vector Field Evaluation

Reply to Comment on “potential Evaporation and the Complementary Relationship” by Jozsef Szilagyi

Interactive comment on “ A review of measurement-based assessment of aerosol direct radiative effect and forcing ” by H . Yu et al

Diurnal Temperature Range in CMIP5 Models and Observations on the Tibetan Plateau

Diagnostic metrics for evaluating model simulations of the East Asian monsoon

Evaluating Two Diagnostic Schemes of Cloud-Fraction Parameterization Using the CloudSat Data

A refined index of model performance: a rejoinder

Comparing Discrete and Empirical Troposphere Delay Models: A Global IGS‐Based Evaluation

Disaggregation of Remotely Sensed Land Surface Temperature: A Simple Yet Flexible Index (SIFI) to Assess Method Performances

Interactive comment on “Little change in Palmer Drought Severity Index across global land under warming in climate projections” by Yuting Yang et al

Understanding the alleviation of "Double-ITCZ" bias in CMIP6 models from the perspective of atmospheric energy balance

Evaluation of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 in simulation performance and drought capture utility over China – based on DISO

A network-based toolkit for evaluation and intercomparison of weather prediction and climate modeling