Table 2 summarizes the pairwise comparison of E and T fluxes between the three methods. The upper diagonal entries order the methods (in a pairwise manner) in terms of the estimation of E while the lower diagonal entries order the methods in terms of the estimation of T. As we can note from Table 2, the dry bias in AMSRE (comparison between SETS and SETS-AMS) led to an underestimation of both E and T fluxes. Meanwhile, the lack of explicit soil moisture accounting but with control on AMSRE bias (comparison between ETLook and SETS-AMS) led to an overestimation of E and T fluxes. What is interesting here is that the lower estimation effect of AMSRE bias dominated the overestimating effect of lack of soil moisture accounting in the case of E flux while the opposite happened in the case of T flux. Hence we found SETS estimation of E flux was larger than that of ETLook while the reverse held for the estimation of T flux.