Field Intercomparison of Radiometers Used for Satellite Validation in the 400–900 nm Range

An intercomparison of radiance and irradiance ocean color radiometers (the second laboratory comparison exercise—LCE-2) was organized within the frame of the European Space Agency funded project Fiducial Reference Measurements for Satellite Ocean Color (FRM4SOC) May 8–13, 2017 at Tartu Observatory, Estonia. LCE-2 consisted of three sub-tasks: (1) SI-traceable radiometric calibration of all the participating radiance and irradiance radiometers at the Tartu Observatory just before the comparisons; (2) indoor, laboratory intercomparison using stable radiance and irradiance sources in a controlled environment; (3) outdoor, field intercomparison of natural radiation sources over a natural water surface. The aim of the experiment was to provide a link in the chain of traceability from field measurements of water reflectance to the uniform SI-traceable calibration, and after calibration to verify whether different instruments measuring the same object provide results consistent within the expected uncertainty limits. This paper describes the third phase of LCE-2: The results of the field experiment. The calibration of radiometers and laboratory comparison experiment are presented in a related paper of the same journal issue. Compared to the laboratory comparison, the field intercomparison has demonstrated substantially larger variability between freshly calibrated sensors, because the targets and environmental conditions during radiometric calibration were different, both spectrally and spatially. Major differences were found for radiance sensors measuring a sunlit water target at viewing zenith angle of 139° because of the different fields of view. Major differences were found for irradiance sensors because of imperfect cosine response of diffusers. Variability between individual radiometers did depend significantly also on the type of the sensor and on the specific measurement target. Uniform SI traceable radiometric calibration ensuring fairly good consistency for indoor, laboratory measurements is insufficient for outdoor, field measurements, mainly due to the different angular variability of illumination. More stringent specifications and individual testing of radiometers for all relevant systematic effects (temperature, nonlinearity, spectral stray light, etc.) are needed to reduce biases between instruments and better quantify measurement uncertainties

Laboratory Intercomparison of Radiometers Used for Satellite Validation in the 400–900 nm Range

An intercomparison of radiance and irradiance ocean color radiometers (The Second Laboratory Comparison Exercise—LCE-2) was organized within the frame of the European Space Agency funded project Fiducial Reference Measurements for Satellite Ocean Color (FRM4SOC) May 8–13, 2017 at Tartu Observatory, Estonia. LCE-2 consisted of three sub-tasks: 1) SI-traceable radiometric calibration of all the participating radiance and irradiance radiometers at the Tartu Observatory just before the comparisons; 2) Indoor intercomparison using stable radiance and irradiance sources in controlled environment; and 3) Outdoor intercomparison of natural radiation sources over terrestrial water surface. The aim of the experiment was to provide one link in the chain of traceability from field measurements of water reflectance to the uniform SI-traceable calibration, and after calibration to verify whether different instruments measuring the same object provide results consistent within the expected uncertainty limits. This paper describes the activities and results of the first two phases of LCE-2: the SI-traceable radiometric calibration and indoor intercomparison, the results of outdoor experiment are presented in a related paper of the same journal issue. The indoor experiment of the LCE-2 has proven that uniform calibration just before the use of radiometers is highly effective. Distinct radiometers from different manufacturers operated by different scientists can yield quite close radiance and irradiance results (standard deviation s < 1%) under defined conditions. This holds when measuring stable lamp-based targets under stationary laboratory conditions with all the radiometers uniformly calibrated against the same standards just prior to the experiment. In addition, some unification of measurement and data processing must be settled. Uncertainty of radiance and irradiance measurement under these conditions largely consists of the sensor’s calibration uncertainty and of the spread of results obtained by individual sensors measuring the same object

Testing a Reconstruction: A Frosty Week in a Viking Age House

In the summers of 2010 and 2011, an archaeologically inspired Viking Age horizontal log house with a two-layer split plank roof, clay floor and a dry-stone stove without a chimney was built in Rõuge, Estonia. In the winter of 2012 (30 January 2012 - 05 February 2012) a one-week living-experiment was organised to test the building. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the experiment and present the results achieved

General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The effect of carotid endarterectomy in lowering the risk of stroke ipsilateral to severe atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis is offset by complications during or soon after surgery. We compared surgery under general anaesthesia with that under local anaesthesia because prediction and avoidance of perioperative strokes might be easier under local anaesthesia than under general anaesthesia. METHODS: We undertook a parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 3526 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 95 centres in 24 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery under general (n=1753) or local (n=1773) anaesthesia between June, 1999 and October, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stroke (including retinal infarction), myocardial infarction, or death between randomisation and 30 days after surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Control Trials number ISRCTN00525237. FINDINGS: A primary outcome occurred in 84 (4.8%) patients assigned to surgery under general anaesthesia and 80 (4.5%) of those assigned to surgery under local anaesthesia; three events per 1000 treated were prevented with local anaesthesia (95% CI -11 to 17; risk ratio [RR] 0.94 [95% CI 0.70 to 1.27]). The two groups did not significantly differ for quality of life, length of hospital stay, or the primary outcome in the prespecified subgroups of age, contralateral carotid occlusion, and baseline surgical risk. INTERPRETATION: We have not shown a definite difference in outcomes between general and local anaesthesia for carotid surgery. The anaesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anaesthetic technique to use on an individual basis. FUNDING: The Health Foundation (UK) and European Society of Vascular Surgery

General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: The effect of carotid endarterectomy in lowering the risk of stroke ipsilateral to severe atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis is offset by complications during or soon after surgery. We compared surgery under general anaesthesia with that under local anaesthesia because prediction and avoidance of perioperative strokes might be easier under local anaesthesia than under general anaesthesia. Methods: We undertook a parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 3526 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 95 centres in 24 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery under general (n=1753) or local (n=1773) anaesthesia between June, 1999 and October, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stroke (including retinal infarction), myocardial infarction, or death between randomisation and 30 days after surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Control Trials number ISRCTN00525237. Findings: A primary outcome occurred in 84 (4·8%) patients assigned to surgery under general anaesthesia and 80 (4·5%) of those assigned to surgery under local anaesthesia; three events per 1000 treated were prevented with local anaesthesia (95% CI -11 to 17; risk ratio [RR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·27]). The two groups did not significantly differ for quality of life, length of hospital stay, or the primary outcome in the prespecified subgroups of age, contralateral carotid occlusion, and baseline surgical risk. Interpretation: We have not shown a definite difference in outcomes between general and local anaesthesia for carotid surgery. The anaesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anaesthetic technique to use on an individual basis. Funding: The Health Foundation (UK) and European Society of Vascular Surgery. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved