应用6S模式对EOS-MODIS可见光到中红外波段的大气订正

应用6S辐射传输模式对MODIS可见光到中红外波段的反射率进行大气订正，订正过程分两步进行:首先设定地表为朗伯体，再应用二向反射模型BRDF进行订正，订正结果与美国MODIS研究组应用MAS实验结果进行比较表明，两者变化趋势是一致的；经过臭氧、水汽、气溶胶等散射吸收订正，对于一定范围的反射率，大气订正使植被区红光波段反射率ρ₁降低、近红外波段反射率ρ₂增加，蓝光波段反射率ρ₃降低；大气订正后，归一化植被指数I_NDV较大气订正前有所增加，增加的最大值为0.104，抗土壤-大气植被指数IEV值略有减小，减小的最大值为0.005。     

松辽盆地南部深层地震资料处理方法研究

针对松辽盆地南部深层原始地震记录接收能量弱、信噪比低、各种干扰波严重和地表条件多变等存在严重的静校正问题，尝试利用CGG、Foucs、Grisys、Promax等多套处理系统的优势模块对跨工区二维大吾4面进行深部地层的折射波静校正、反褶积、剩余静校正、DipMoveOut、偏移等关键技术的联合处理方法试验研究，形成了一套针对松辽盆地南部深层地震资料处理的有效方法。     

基于EM算法和单幅雷达图像阴影的控制点坡度校正

对在我国现有的条件下进行控制点坡度校正的必要性进行了阐述，并分析了EM算法。根据EM算法以及基于区域增长的余弦散射模型建立了控制点坡度校正模型，并用河北省张北地区的雷达影像进行了实验，取得了较高的精度初值。     

MODIS 1B影像几何纠正方法研究及软件实现

MODIS影像是一种新型和重要的数据。对MODIS 1B影像几何畸变原因进行了深入分析，选择了一种合适的纠正方法。对于1km分辨率MODIS 1B影像，直接采用1km分辨率的空间坐标进行几何纠正；对于250m和500m分辨率的MODIS 1B影像，先用三次样条曲线对坐标进行插值生成同分辨率的坐标，然后利用坐标插值结果对其进行几何纠正。由于MODIS影像在空问分布上的特殊性，采用前向和后向映射相结合的方式确定纠正后某一像素点在原始影像中的位置。根据该位置的条带重叠度，可以确定参与计算像素个数、搜索窗口的大小以及窗口的精确位置；采用归一化反距离加权插值法计算纠正后像素点的属性值。上述优化算法不仅保证了纠正后影像的质量，而且提高了数据处理速度。作者在Visual C 6．0环境下开发实现了上述算法。从坐标插值和几何纠正结果分析，无论是数据处理速度还是纠正后的影像质量和精度均达到要求。     

地形可视化的进展与评述

地形可视化由于具有越来越广泛的用途，因此越来越多地引起了大家的关注。本文在简要论述科学可视化、地形可视化定义及其研究内容的基础上，着重讨论了当前地形可视化的表达手段、可视化建模与技术、可视化生成工具、实时地形生成等方面的研究现状及存在的问题，最后对可视化的应用前景和发展趋势进行了展望。     

Correcting method of eddy covariance fluxes over non-flat surfaces and its application in ChinaFLUX

Although Eddy Covariance (EC) technique is one of the best methods for estimating the energy and mass exchanges between underlying surface and atmosphere in micrometeorology, errors and uncertainties still exist without necessary corrections. In this paper, we will focus on the effect of coordinate system on the eddy fluxes. Based on the data observed over four sites (one farmland site, one grassland site and two forest sites), the effects of three coordinate system transforming methods (Double Rotation-DR, Triple Rotation-TR and Planar Fit-PF)on the turbulent fluxes are analyzed. It shows that (i) the corrected fluxes are more or less than the uncorrected fluxes, which is related mainly to the sloping degree of surface, wind speed and wind direction; and (ii) pitch angle has a sinusoidal dependence on wind direction, especially in the regular sloping terrain; and (iii) PF method is something like the simplification of TR or DR,and there are not obvious distinctions in correction in sloping grassland and flat farmland, but PF method is not suitable for uneven and irregular forest sites.     

Using raw regional climate model outputs for quantifying climate change impacts on hydrology

General circulation model outputs are rarely used directly for quantifying climate change impacts on hydrology, due to their coarse resolution and inherent bias. Bias correction methods are usually applied to correct the statistical deviations of climate model outputs from the observed data. However, the use of bias correction methods for impact studies is often disputable, due to the lack of physical basis and the bias nonstationarity of climate model outputs. With the improvement in model resolution and reliability, it is now possible to investigate the direct use of regional climate model (RCM) outputs for impact studies. This study proposes an approach to use RCM simulations directly for quantifying the hydrological impacts of climate change over North America. With this method, a hydrological model (HSAMI) is specifically calibrated using the RCM simulations at the recent past period. The change in hydrological regimes for a future period (2041–2065) over the reference (1971–1995), simulated using bias‐corrected and nonbias‐corrected simulations, is compared using mean flow, spring high flow, and summer–autumn low flow as indicators. Three RCMs driven by three different general circulation models are used to investigate the uncertainty of hydrological simulations associated with the choice of a bias‐corrected or nonbias‐corrected RCM simulation. The results indicate that the uncertainty envelope is generally watershed and indicator dependent. It is difficult to draw a firm conclusion about whether one method is better than the other. In other words, the bias correction method could bring further uncertainty to future hydrological simulations, in addition to uncertainty related to the choice of a bias correction method. This implies that the nonbias‐corrected results should be provided to end users along with the bias‐corrected ones, along with a detailed explanation of the bias correction procedure. This information would be especially helpful to assist end users in making the most informed decisions.