This is easy to explain because when the particle single scattering albedo drops to zero, the particle scattering coefficient vanishes, and the choice of phase functions cannot therefore affect the value of RSR.

A more interesting result is the divergence of RSR for a high single scattering albedo. The presence of this effect means that one should expect especially large divergences between water leaving radiance levels when modelling highly scattering waters (for example, bubble clouds). The results presented in CMLK06 do not show this effect, which is surprising because the highest ω0 value of the rightmost points in CMLK06 Figures 6a and 7a are about 0.98, whereas the effect we observe starts around ω0 = 0.8. BTK inhibitor The only explanation we have of why Chami et al. (2006) did not see this effect is that the measured and FF-modelled phase functions they compared have similar shapes in the relevant forward scattering region (see next paragraph), unlike some of the different analytical functions that we have been studying. It is important to notice that the two outliers in this highly scattering regime (the HG function and FF for n = 1.01) are also outliers in the phase function Rucaparib purchase ( Figure 1) for a wide scattering region (about 4 to 120 degrees – forward scattering is not shown in the figure). For a single scattering albedo lower than 0.9, the two functions are also

outliers but with inverted signs. This suggests that for single scattering albedo values smaller than 0.9 the major part of the water leaving reflectance comes from backscattering,

while for a highly scattering regime the dominant angular region is forward scattering (but not into small angles). This result (the dominance of 4 to 120 degree scattering angles) seems to be a slight modification of the conclusion of CMLK06 (see Figure 10 in that publication) that for highly Reverse transcriptase scattering waters, the dominant scattering regime in the history of photons leaving the water is forward scattering. Chami et al. (2006) assumed, after performing a number of simulations, the ‘angular reciprocity of the sensor viewing angle relative to the solar zenith angle’ and therefore tested the effect of different sensor viewing angles for a fixed solar zenith angle. Because changing the solar zenith angle and calculating RSR for each of them seems more natural (one that does not add any additional systematic error) and because the form of graphic presentation chosen in Figures 6 and 7 of CMLK06 makes it very difficult to determine the functional relationship of RSR vs. the solar zenith angle, we decided to study this effect with a series of different solar zenith angles. The water leaving radiance reflectances (which are parts of RSR) are shown in Figure 3. The results show that the phase functions used in the study may lead to an up to 7% variation in calculated water leaving reflectance values (4% between the FF functions only).