OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: J. H. Eberly
  • Vol. 7, Iss. 11 — Nov. 20, 2000
  • pp: 375–380
« Show journal navigation

Polarized infrared emissivity for a rough water surface

Joseph A. Shaw and Christopher Marston  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 7, Issue 11, pp. 375-380 (2000)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.7.000375


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (188 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

The polarization state of infrared emission from water at large viewing angles is explained mathematically by a polarization-dependent emissivity. To provide polarized emissivity values for a wind-roughened water surface in a convenient format, this electronic paper provides interactive tables and plots of polarized water emissivity for the spectral range of 3–15 µm. The rough surface is modeled as a collection of specular facets with slopes given by a Gaussian distribution. The interactive electronic format provides a tutorial on emission polarization and it allows readers to copy the desired numbers and paste them into their electronic applications without the difficulty of transcribing numbers from printed tables.

© Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

The use of Infrared polarization is becoming more common in remote sensing, especially for water, which is perhaps the most strongly polarized thermal infrared source in nature [1

1. J. A. Shaw, “Degree of linear polarization in spectral radiances from water-viewing infrared radiometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3157–3165 (1999). [CrossRef]

]. Infrared polarimetry has been proposed as a method for remote sensing of water surface roughness [1

1. J. A. Shaw, “Degree of linear polarization in spectral radiances from water-viewing infrared radiometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3157–3165 (1999). [CrossRef]

3

3. W. G. Egan, Photometry and Polarization in Remote Sensing (Elsevier, New York, 1985), pp. 337–354.

] and for identification of man-made objects in military surveillance [4

4. R. D. Tooley, “Man-made target detection using infrared polarization,” in Polarization considerations for optical systems II, R.A. Chipman, ed., Proc. SPIE1166, 52–58 (1989).

,5

5. A. W. Cooper, W. J. Lentz, and P. L. Walker, “Infrared polarization ship images and contrast in the MAPTIP experiment,” in Image Propagation Through the Atmosphere, L. R. Bissonnette and C. Dainty, eds., Proc. SPIE2828, 85–96 (1996).

]. Even non-polarimetric water remote sensing applications require consideration of polarization when the sensor response varies with polarization [6

6. J. A. Shaw, “The impact of polarization on infrared sea-surface temperature remote sensing,” Proc. IGARSS98 (IEEE), 496–498 (1998).

,7

7. T. S. Pagano, H. H. Aumann, K. Overoye, and G. W. Gigioli Jr., “Scan-angle-dependent radiometric modulation due to polarization for the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder,” in Earth Observing Systems V, W. L. Barnes, ed., Proc. SPIE4135, 108–116 (2000).

] Whenever water is considered in these analyses, a polarized emissivity is required for the water surface.

Emissivity is a number that varies from zero to one, which describes how efficiently something radiates thermal radiation. Thermal emission from any object can be calculated as the product of the object’s emissivity and the Planck function evaluated at the object’s physical temperature and the wavelength of interest. For example, a perfect blackbody has an emissivity of one, which implies that it radiates the full amount of energy that is predicted by the Planck function alone; conversely, a perfect reflector has an emissivity of zero, implying that it neither absorbs nor emits any energy at all.

Computing polarized emissivity for a smooth, specular water surface requires only simple application of the Fresnel equations [1

1. J. A. Shaw, “Degree of linear polarization in spectral radiances from water-viewing infrared radiometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3157–3165 (1999). [CrossRef]

,2

2. F. J. Iannarilli, J. A. Shaw, S. H. Jones, and H. E. Scott, “Snapshot LWIR hyperspectral polarimetric imager for ocean surface sensing,” in Polarization and Remote Sensing III, D. H. Goldstein, D. B. Chenault, W. G. Egan, and M. J. Duggin, eds., Proc. SPIE4133, 270–282 (2000).

]. However, a more realistic wind-roughened surface requires more complicated calculations [8

8. K. Masuda, T. Takashima, and Y. Takayama, “Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions,” Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 313–329 (1988). [CrossRef]

10

10. C. R. Zeisse, C. P. McGrath, and K. M. Littfin, “Infrared radiance of the wind-ruffled sea,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 1439–1452 (1999). [CrossRef]

]. Searching the literature for calculated emissivity values currently yields only unpolarized results [8

8. K. Masuda, T. Takashima, and Y. Takayama, “Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions,” Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 313–329 (1988). [CrossRef]

,9

9. X. Wu and W. L. Smith, “Emissivity of rough sea surface for 8–13 µm: modeling and verification,” Appl. Opt. 36, 2609–2619 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. This electronic paper addresses the need for tabulated values of polarized water emissivity by providing user-interactive tables from which data can be copied for a variety of wavelengths, viewing angles, and wind speeds. The intent is to provide reliable numbers for realistic analysis in a format that is easier and more reliable to use than printed tables, without the user needing to program rough-surface integrals.

We consider the thermal infrared spectral range of 3–15 µm in 0.1 µm steps, viewing angles of 0–70° with respect to the nadir, and wind speeds of 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 m s-1. We do not present results for larger angles where the present algorithm does not adequately treat emission and multiple reflection from neighboring wave facets. The rough surface is modeled with the simple isotropic Gaussian term from the Cox-Munk slope-probability model [11

11. C. Cox and W. Munk, “Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of the sun’s glitter,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 838–850 (1954). [CrossRef]

]. A more detailed model could also include higher-order slope-statistics terms, as well as the variation with azimuthal roughness [11

11. C. Cox and W. Munk, “Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of the sun’s glitter,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 838–850 (1954). [CrossRef]

] and air-sea temperature difference [12

12. J. A. Shaw and J. H. Churnside, “Scanning-laser glint measurements of sea-surface slope statistics,” Appl. Opt. , 36, 4202–4213 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

2. Rough-surface emissivity model

Each polarization component of infrared emissivity for a smooth, specular water surface can be calculated as one minus the corresponding reflectivity,

εs,p(λ,θ)=1Rs,p(λ,θ),
(1)

where the reflectivity is given for each polarization state by the Fresnel equations:

Rs(λ,θ)=cos(θ)n(λ)cos(θr)cos(θ)+n(λ)cos(θr)2
(2a)

and

Rp(λ,θ)=n(λ)cos(θ)cos(θr)n(λ)cos(θ)+cos(θr)2.
(2b)

In these equations, the superscripts s and p indicate the polarization state, with s polarization perpendicular to the plane of incidence and p polarization parallel to the plane of incidence. Thus, for a flat, horizontal water surface, s indicates horizontal and p indicates vertical. The other variables in eqns. (1) and (2) are wavelength λ, viewing angle in air θ, angle of refraction in the water θr, and complex refractive index n. We use the complex refractive index values given by Hale and Querry [13

13. G. M. Hale and M. R. Querry, “Optical constants of water in the 200-nm to 200-µm wavelength region,” Appl. Opt. 12, 555–563 (1973). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] for pure water because the the sea-water values change the emissivity by only about 0.1%. For a given viewing angle in air, the angle of refraction can be calculated from Snell’s Law:

θr(λ,θ)=sin1[sin(θ)n(λ)].
(3)

Smooth-surface calculations are relatively simple, but a rough surface requires integration over the randomly oriented specular facets. The derivation and details of this procedure are described elsewhere [8

8. K. Masuda, T. Takashima, and Y. Takayama, “Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions,” Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 313–329 (1988). [CrossRef]

10

10. C. R. Zeisse, C. P. McGrath, and K. M. Littfin, “Infrared radiance of the wind-ruffled sea,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 1439–1452 (1999). [CrossRef]

] so we give only a brief overview here. We compute an effective emissivity for the rough-surface, which is found by multiplying the Fresnel emissivity for each wave slope by the slope probability density function (pdf), and integrating over the full range of possible slopes, weighted by the projected wave-facet area. For simplicity, we use the isotropic Gaussian term from the Cox-Munk model for wave-slope probability density function [11

11. C. Cox and W. Munk, “Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of the sun’s glitter,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 838–850 (1954). [CrossRef]

]:

p(θn)=12πσ2exp(tan2(θn)2σ2)
(4)

This pdf describes the probability of a wave facet having slope θn with respect to the zenith for any wave-slope variance (mean-square slope) σ2. In the Cox-Munk model, the mean-square slope depends linearly on wind speed w according to

2σ2=0.003+0.00512w(±0.004).
(5)

Shaw and Churnside recently demonstrated that the mean-square slope also depends on the air-sea temperature difference [12

12. J. A. Shaw and J. H. Churnside, “Scanning-laser glint measurements of sea-surface slope statistics,” Appl. Opt. , 36, 4202–4213 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] so the results shown here (as with all results from the Cox-Munk model) are valid strictly for neutral stability (equal temperatures of the water surface and immediately overlying air). Also, higher-order terms in the slope pdf are required to simulate a more realistic rough surface [11

11. C. Cox and W. Munk, “Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of the sun’s glitter,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 838–850 (1954). [CrossRef]

,12

12. J. A. Shaw and J. H. Churnside, “Scanning-laser glint measurements of sea-surface slope statistics,” Appl. Opt. , 36, 4202–4213 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], but their relatively small contribution to the slope integral allows these terms to be dropped for the sake of simplicity.

cos(χ)=μeμn+(1μe)12(1μn)12cos(ϕ).
(6)

The effective emissivity is calculated as an expectation average for each polarization state as

ε-s,p(λ,μe)=ε-s,p(λ,μe)μe,
(7)

with

ε-s,p(λ,μe)=2μe010πεs,p(λ,χ)cos(χ)p(θn)μn4dϕdμn
(8)

and the normalization factor,

(μe)=2μe010πcos(χ)p(θn)μn4dϕdμn,cos(χ)>0.
(9)

Because the wave-slope probability density function must be conditioned by both the wave-facet projected area [cos(χ)] and the Jacobian, the factor given by eq. (9) is required to normalize the density function in the numerator of eq. (7). Also, even with the isotropic Cox-Munk wave-slope probability, we computed the integrals in eqs. 6–9 over the indicated azimuth limits.

To use these equations for calculating the polarized rough-surface emissivity, the polarized smooth-surface emissivity components for each facet are calculated from eqns. (1) and (2) to generate each s,p(λ,χ) inside the integrals of eq. (8). The entire calculation procedure is repeated separately for the s- and p-polarized emissivity components.

The resulting degree of polarization D for emitted radiance is given as

D=εsεpεs+εp,
(10)

where the superscripts s and p denote the corresponding polarization components of emissivity. Note that this is the degree of polarization for the emitted radiance alone; the total radiance observed in an actual polarimetric measurement would also include reflected background radiance and atmospheric absorption [1

1. J. A. Shaw, “Degree of linear polarization in spectral radiances from water-viewing infrared radiometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3157–3165 (1999). [CrossRef]

].

3. Results

We calculated polarized rough-surface emissivity for a similar range of wavelengths, viewing angles, and wind speeds as did Masuda et al. [8

8. K. Masuda, T. Takashima, and Y. Takayama, “Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions,” Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 313–329 (1988). [CrossRef]

] for unpolarized emissivity, except that we used angles up to only θ=70° because at larger angles a more sophisticated scheme is required to include the effect of emission and multiple reflections from neighboring facets [9

9. X. Wu and W. L. Smith, “Emissivity of rough sea surface for 8–13 µm: modeling and verification,” Appl. Opt. 36, 2609–2619 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,14

14. P. D. Watts, M. R. Allen, and T. J. Nightingale, “Wind speed effects on sea surface emission and reflection for the along track scanning radiometer,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 13, 126–141 (1996). [CrossRef]

]. Our calculations are for wavelengths of 3 µm to 15 µm in 0.1 µm steps, viewing angles of 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 45°, 50°, 60°, and 70°, at wind speeds of 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 m s-1.

Figure 1 shows the s- and p-polarized emissivity on the left and the resulting degree of polarization on the right, both versus wavelength (3–15 µm) for zero wind speed and 70° viewing angle. Clicking on this graph activates a Java applet that displays the spectral emissivity and degree of polarization for different angles and wind speeds. The slider at the bottom of the interactive graph selects different combinations of wind speed and angle.

Fig. 1. An example of how infrared emission from water becomes increasingly p-polarized as the viewing angle increases. The left-hand graph shows the polarized emissivity components and the right-hand graph shows the resulting degree of emission polarization. This example is for zero wind speed and 70° viewing angle. Click the figure to activate an interactive version. [Media 1]

Table 1 provides values of s- and p-polarized emissivity components vs wavelength. Clicking the table activates an interactive version that loads the emissivity values for a user- selected wind speed and viewing angle. The emissivity and wavelength numbers can be copied and pasted electronically from this electronic table to your own application.

In the interactive table, use the arrow keys to move up and down in the data columns. The columns in the upper right-hand corner provide access to each individual polarized emissivity component, while the one at the bottom allows you simultaneously to scroll through the wavelength and emissivity columns. Clicking once selects the entire column, allowing you to copy and paste the full array of data.

Table 1. Click the table to obtain polarized emissivity values for the chosen wind speed and viewing angle. [Media 2]

4. Discussion

In Figures 1 and 2, notice how the emissivity polarization components change with viewing angle as the angle passes the Brewster angle (~49°–56°). At nonzero angles, but below the Brewster angle, the p-polarized emissivity is larger than the zero-angle value and the s-polarized emissivity is smaller. The p-polarized component reaches a peak near unity at the Brewster angle and becomes steadily smaller as the angle is increased beyond the Brewster angle. Note that the behavior of emission polarization at the Brewster angle is fundamentally different from that of reflection polarization (see Fig. 2). Whereas light reflected from a perfect dielectric at the Brewster angle is 100% s-polarized (less than 100% for a lossy dielectric, but still maximum), emission polarization does not achieve 100% (or even maximum) polarization at the Brewster angle because neither of the two emissivity components is zero there. In fact, for pure emission polarization, the degree of polarization magnitude increases steadily as the viewing angle ranges from 0° to 90°.

Fig. 2. Degree of polarization versus viewing angle for reflection from water (top) and emission from water (bottom) at two thermal infrared wavelengths. Note that the significantly large imaginary component of the refractive index at 12 µm results in peak reflection polarization less than 100%.

It is important to remember that the actual radiance observed from water in nature contains a combination of emission and reflection polarization [1

1. J. A. Shaw, “Degree of linear polarization in spectral radiances from water-viewing infrared radiometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3157–3165 (1999). [CrossRef]

]. Water observed in nature at thermal infrared wavelengths typically exhibits a net degree of p-polarization that peaks near 75°–80°, and Fig. 1 shows only the polarization of the radiation emitted by the water surface. Furthermore, strictly speaking, the background reflection must be included inside the rough-surface integral, making our results valid only for the case of a uniform clear-sky background. However, at least for the low wind speed conditions, the effective emissivities presented here can be used in Fresnel calculations to approximate the scene polarization for a given background.

Averaging the s and p emissivity values from our table for any one set of conditions reproduces the unpolarized emissivity values published by Masuda et al. [8

8. K. Masuda, T. Takashima, and Y. Takayama, “Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions,” Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 313–329 (1988). [CrossRef]

] to within ±0.0001 (~0.01% difference) except for a few values at high wind speed and large angle where the numerical algorithm stability seems to become questionable. For example, the data for a wind speed of 15 m s-1 and angle of 70° are included in the table, but their agreement with the previously published average values varies from about 0.1 to 0.01 throughout the spectrum (approximately 1–10% error).

5. Conclusion

We have provided an electronic table from which the reader can copy columns of polarized emissivity versus wavelength for a rough water surface. An interactive graph also provides the opportunity to observe how the emissivity polarization components change with viewing angle, wind speed, and wavelength. We hope that this provides the interested reader with a chance to become more familiar with the concepts of emission polarization and to obtain readily usable polarized emissivity values for use in modeling and analysis of infrared polarimetry.

References and links

1.

J. A. Shaw, “Degree of linear polarization in spectral radiances from water-viewing infrared radiometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3157–3165 (1999). [CrossRef]

2.

F. J. Iannarilli, J. A. Shaw, S. H. Jones, and H. E. Scott, “Snapshot LWIR hyperspectral polarimetric imager for ocean surface sensing,” in Polarization and Remote Sensing III, D. H. Goldstein, D. B. Chenault, W. G. Egan, and M. J. Duggin, eds., Proc. SPIE4133, 270–282 (2000).

3.

W. G. Egan, Photometry and Polarization in Remote Sensing (Elsevier, New York, 1985), pp. 337–354.

4.

R. D. Tooley, “Man-made target detection using infrared polarization,” in Polarization considerations for optical systems II, R.A. Chipman, ed., Proc. SPIE1166, 52–58 (1989).

5.

A. W. Cooper, W. J. Lentz, and P. L. Walker, “Infrared polarization ship images and contrast in the MAPTIP experiment,” in Image Propagation Through the Atmosphere, L. R. Bissonnette and C. Dainty, eds., Proc. SPIE2828, 85–96 (1996).

6.

J. A. Shaw, “The impact of polarization on infrared sea-surface temperature remote sensing,” Proc. IGARSS98 (IEEE), 496–498 (1998).

7.

T. S. Pagano, H. H. Aumann, K. Overoye, and G. W. Gigioli Jr., “Scan-angle-dependent radiometric modulation due to polarization for the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder,” in Earth Observing Systems V, W. L. Barnes, ed., Proc. SPIE4135, 108–116 (2000).

8.

K. Masuda, T. Takashima, and Y. Takayama, “Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions,” Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 313–329 (1988). [CrossRef]

9.

X. Wu and W. L. Smith, “Emissivity of rough sea surface for 8–13 µm: modeling and verification,” Appl. Opt. 36, 2609–2619 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

C. R. Zeisse, C. P. McGrath, and K. M. Littfin, “Infrared radiance of the wind-ruffled sea,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 1439–1452 (1999). [CrossRef]

11.

C. Cox and W. Munk, “Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of the sun’s glitter,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 838–850 (1954). [CrossRef]

12.

J. A. Shaw and J. H. Churnside, “Scanning-laser glint measurements of sea-surface slope statistics,” Appl. Opt. , 36, 4202–4213 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13.

G. M. Hale and M. R. Querry, “Optical constants of water in the 200-nm to 200-µm wavelength region,” Appl. Opt. 12, 555–563 (1973). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

P. D. Watts, M. R. Allen, and T. J. Nightingale, “Wind speed effects on sea surface emission and reflection for the along track scanning radiometer,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 13, 126–141 (1996). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(010.4450) Atmospheric and oceanic optics : Oceanic optics
(010.7340) Atmospheric and oceanic optics : Water
(030.5620) Coherence and statistical optics : Radiative transfer
(260.3060) Physical optics : Infrared
(260.5430) Physical optics : Polarization
(280.0280) Remote sensing and sensors : Remote sensing and sensors

ToC Category:
Research Papers

History
Original Manuscript: October 5, 2000
Published: November 20, 2000

Citation
Joseph Shaw and Christopher Marston, "Polarized infrared emissivity for a rough water surface," Opt. Express 7, 375-380 (2000)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-7-11-375


Sort:  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. J. A. Shaw, "Degree of linear polarization in spectral radiances from water-viewing infrared radiometers," Appl. Opt. 38, 3157-3165 (1999). [CrossRef]
  2. F. J. Iannarilli, J. A. Shaw, S. H. Jones, and H. E. Scott, "Snapshot LWIR hyperspectral polarimetric imager for ocean surface sensing," in Polarization and Remote Sensing III, D. H. Goldstein, D. B. Chenault, W. G. Egan, and M. J. Duggin, eds., Proc. SPIE 4133, 270-282 (2000).
  3. W. G. Egan, Photometry and Polarization in Remote Sensing (Elsevier, New York, 1985), pp. 337-354.
  4. R. D. Tooley, "Man-made target detection using infrared polarization," in Polarization considerations for optical systems II, R.A. Chipman, ed., Proc. SPIE 1166, 52-58 (1989).
  5. A. W. Cooper, W. J. Lentz, and P. L. Walker, "Infrared polarization ship images and contrast in the MAPTIP experiment," in Image Propagation Through the Atmosphere, L. R. Bissonnette and C. Dainty, eds., Proc. SPIE 2828, 85-96 (1996).
  6. J. A. Shaw, "The impact of polarization on infrared sea-surface temperature remote sensing," Proc. IGARSS98 (IEEE), 496-498 (1998).
  7. T. S. Pagano, H. H. Aumann, K. Overoye, G. W. Gigioli, Jr.,"Scan-angle-dependent radiometric modulation due to polarization for the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder," in Earth Observing Systems V, W. L. Barnes, ed., Proc. SPIE 4135, 108-116 (2000).
  8. K. Masuda, T. Takashima, and Y. Takayama, "Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions," Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 313-329 (1988). [CrossRef]
  9. X. Wu and W. L. Smith, "Emissivity of rough sea surface for 8-13 �m: modeling and verification," Appl. Opt. 36, 2609-2619 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. C. R. Zeisse, C. P. McGrath, and K. M. Littfin, "Infrared radiance of the wind-ruffled sea," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 1439-1452 (1999). [CrossRef]
  11. C. Cox and W. Munk, "Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of the sun's glitter," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 838-850 (1954). [CrossRef]
  12. J. A. Shaw and J. H. Churnside, "Scanning-laser glint measurements of sea-surface slope statistics," Appl. Opt. 36, 4202-4213 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. G. M. Hale and M. R. Querry, "Optical constants of water in the 200-nm to 200-�m wavelength region," Appl. Opt. 12, 555-563 (1973). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. P. D. Watts, M. R. Allen, and T. J. Nightingale, "Wind speed effects on sea surface emission and reflection for the along track scanning radiometer," J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 13, 126-141 (1996). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1. Table 1. Fig. 2.
 

Supplementary Material


» Media 1: HTML (0 KB)     
» Media 2: PDF (85 KB)     

« Previous Article

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited