Comparative assessment of radio occultation-based refractivity measurements from the COSMIC mission and in-situ atmospheric measurements in equatorial Africa
The growing technological needs for multi-instrument datasets require proper understanding of the behaviour of the datasets relative to each other. This paper presents the first results of analysis on the relationship between in-situ ground refractivity measurements and Constellation Observing Syste...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Meteorology and atmospheric physics 2021-10, Vol.133 (5), p.1545-1554 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1554 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1545 |
container_title | Meteorology and atmospheric physics |
container_volume | 133 |
creator | Nzeagwu, J. N. Urama, J. O. Chukwude, A. E. Okoh, D. I. |
description | The growing technological needs for multi-instrument datasets require proper understanding of the behaviour of the datasets relative to each other. This paper presents the first results of analysis on the relationship between in-situ ground refractivity measurements and Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) refractivity measurements in the African equatorial region. In-situ measurements of surface refractivity obtained from four atmospheric ground stations in the region are compared with COSMIC-1 refractivity measurements at 1 km altitude. The in-situ datasets cover the periods from years 2007 to 2014, and corresponding COSMIC-1 datasets over the same period was used. Datasets from the recently launched COSMIC-2 mission (October 2019–September 2020) were utilized to show that the typical differences between refractivity values measured at 0 and 1 km altitudes are about 48 N-units. Interestingly, time-coincident measurements from COSMIC-1 (at 1 km altitude) and from ground in-situ measurements indicate that there is a similar typical difference (about 52 N-units) between refractivity values at the two altitudes. The reason for using COSMIC-2 measurements is that the altitudes covered by COSMIC-1 measurements start from a minimum of 0.1 km, and even at this altitude, the COSMIC-1 measurements are very scanty that there are no coincident observations with the in-situ ground stations. This is why it became imperative to first use COSMIC-2 measurements which cover altitudes from as low as 0 km. The reason is to validate that the difference between COSMIC measurements at 0 and 1 km altitudes are equivalent/comparable to difference between in-situ ground measurements and COSMIC measurements at 1 km. These results indicate that the COSMIC measurements at 0 km are comparable to the in-situ ground measurements. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00703-021-00827-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2573640866</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2573640866</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-a32ba0d59d8550992de015b1af770f4b394e7bac01b2491da998288ec971419a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1KJTEQhYMoeP15AVcB19FK-iedpTQzKigu1HWo7k5r5HbnmkoP-DDzrkavIG7cVFHU-argHMZOJJxJAH1OuUAhQEkB0CgtzA5bybKoRQV1tctWILUW2mi5zw6IXiDPtZIr9r8N0wYjJv_PcSRyRJObEw8jjzj4wEPfL-uU92EWHZIbeHRjxD4DPr3xySEt0X0wxMcYJp6eHW_v7m-vWz55osxxnAfuZ0E-LRzTFGjz7KLvf8J-5u51wRSixzW_GLMAj9jeiGtyx1_9kD3-_fPQXombu8vr9uJG9IU0SWChOoShMkNTVWCMGhzIqpM4ag1j2RWmdLrDHmSnSiMHNKZRTeP67EcpDRaH7HR7dxPD6-Io2ZewxDm_tKrSRV1CU9dZpbaqPgaibIPdRD9hfLMS7EcMdhuDzTHYzxisyVCxhSiL5ycXv0__Qr0DciCOXA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2573640866</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative assessment of radio occultation-based refractivity measurements from the COSMIC mission and in-situ atmospheric measurements in equatorial Africa</title><source>Springer Online Journals Complete</source><creator>Nzeagwu, J. N. ; Urama, J. O. ; Chukwude, A. E. ; Okoh, D. I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Nzeagwu, J. N. ; Urama, J. O. ; Chukwude, A. E. ; Okoh, D. I.</creatorcontrib><description>The growing technological needs for multi-instrument datasets require proper understanding of the behaviour of the datasets relative to each other. This paper presents the first results of analysis on the relationship between in-situ ground refractivity measurements and Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) refractivity measurements in the African equatorial region. In-situ measurements of surface refractivity obtained from four atmospheric ground stations in the region are compared with COSMIC-1 refractivity measurements at 1 km altitude. The in-situ datasets cover the periods from years 2007 to 2014, and corresponding COSMIC-1 datasets over the same period was used. Datasets from the recently launched COSMIC-2 mission (October 2019–September 2020) were utilized to show that the typical differences between refractivity values measured at 0 and 1 km altitudes are about 48 N-units. Interestingly, time-coincident measurements from COSMIC-1 (at 1 km altitude) and from ground in-situ measurements indicate that there is a similar typical difference (about 52 N-units) between refractivity values at the two altitudes. The reason for using COSMIC-2 measurements is that the altitudes covered by COSMIC-1 measurements start from a minimum of 0.1 km, and even at this altitude, the COSMIC-1 measurements are very scanty that there are no coincident observations with the in-situ ground stations. This is why it became imperative to first use COSMIC-2 measurements which cover altitudes from as low as 0 km. The reason is to validate that the difference between COSMIC measurements at 0 and 1 km altitudes are equivalent/comparable to difference between in-situ ground measurements and COSMIC measurements at 1 km. These results indicate that the COSMIC measurements at 0 km are comparable to the in-situ ground measurements.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0177-7971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1436-5065</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00703-021-00827-9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Vienna: Springer Vienna</publisher><subject>Altitude ; Aquatic Pollution ; Atmospheric Sciences ; Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Climate ; Constellations ; Datasets ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Equatorial regions ; Ground stations ; Ionosphere ; Math. Appl. in Environmental Science ; Meteorology ; Original Paper ; Radio occultation ; Refractive index ; Refractivity ; Terrestrial Pollution ; Waste Water Technology ; Water Management ; Water Pollution Control</subject><ispartof>Meteorology and atmospheric physics, 2021-10, Vol.133 (5), p.1545-1554</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-a32ba0d59d8550992de015b1af770f4b394e7bac01b2491da998288ec971419a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-a32ba0d59d8550992de015b1af770f4b394e7bac01b2491da998288ec971419a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00703-021-00827-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00703-021-00827-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nzeagwu, J. N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Urama, J. O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chukwude, A. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okoh, D. I.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative assessment of radio occultation-based refractivity measurements from the COSMIC mission and in-situ atmospheric measurements in equatorial Africa</title><title>Meteorology and atmospheric physics</title><addtitle>Meteorol Atmos Phys</addtitle><description>The growing technological needs for multi-instrument datasets require proper understanding of the behaviour of the datasets relative to each other. This paper presents the first results of analysis on the relationship between in-situ ground refractivity measurements and Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) refractivity measurements in the African equatorial region. In-situ measurements of surface refractivity obtained from four atmospheric ground stations in the region are compared with COSMIC-1 refractivity measurements at 1 km altitude. The in-situ datasets cover the periods from years 2007 to 2014, and corresponding COSMIC-1 datasets over the same period was used. Datasets from the recently launched COSMIC-2 mission (October 2019–September 2020) were utilized to show that the typical differences between refractivity values measured at 0 and 1 km altitudes are about 48 N-units. Interestingly, time-coincident measurements from COSMIC-1 (at 1 km altitude) and from ground in-situ measurements indicate that there is a similar typical difference (about 52 N-units) between refractivity values at the two altitudes. The reason for using COSMIC-2 measurements is that the altitudes covered by COSMIC-1 measurements start from a minimum of 0.1 km, and even at this altitude, the COSMIC-1 measurements are very scanty that there are no coincident observations with the in-situ ground stations. This is why it became imperative to first use COSMIC-2 measurements which cover altitudes from as low as 0 km. The reason is to validate that the difference between COSMIC measurements at 0 and 1 km altitudes are equivalent/comparable to difference between in-situ ground measurements and COSMIC measurements at 1 km. These results indicate that the COSMIC measurements at 0 km are comparable to the in-situ ground measurements.</description><subject>Altitude</subject><subject>Aquatic Pollution</subject><subject>Atmospheric Sciences</subject><subject>Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Climate</subject><subject>Constellations</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Equatorial regions</subject><subject>Ground stations</subject><subject>Ionosphere</subject><subject>Math. Appl. in Environmental Science</subject><subject>Meteorology</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Radio occultation</subject><subject>Refractive index</subject><subject>Refractivity</subject><subject>Terrestrial Pollution</subject><subject>Waste Water Technology</subject><subject>Water Management</subject><subject>Water Pollution Control</subject><issn>0177-7971</issn><issn>1436-5065</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1KJTEQhYMoeP15AVcB19FK-iedpTQzKigu1HWo7k5r5HbnmkoP-DDzrkavIG7cVFHU-argHMZOJJxJAH1OuUAhQEkB0CgtzA5bybKoRQV1tctWILUW2mi5zw6IXiDPtZIr9r8N0wYjJv_PcSRyRJObEw8jjzj4wEPfL-uU92EWHZIbeHRjxD4DPr3xySEt0X0wxMcYJp6eHW_v7m-vWz55osxxnAfuZ0E-LRzTFGjz7KLvf8J-5u51wRSixzW_GLMAj9jeiGtyx1_9kD3-_fPQXombu8vr9uJG9IU0SWChOoShMkNTVWCMGhzIqpM4ag1j2RWmdLrDHmSnSiMHNKZRTeP67EcpDRaH7HR7dxPD6-Io2ZewxDm_tKrSRV1CU9dZpbaqPgaibIPdRD9hfLMS7EcMdhuDzTHYzxisyVCxhSiL5ycXv0__Qr0DciCOXA</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Nzeagwu, J. N.</creator><creator>Urama, J. O.</creator><creator>Chukwude, A. E.</creator><creator>Okoh, D. I.</creator><general>Springer Vienna</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Comparative assessment of radio occultation-based refractivity measurements from the COSMIC mission and in-situ atmospheric measurements in equatorial Africa</title><author>Nzeagwu, J. N. ; Urama, J. O. ; Chukwude, A. E. ; Okoh, D. I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-a32ba0d59d8550992de015b1af770f4b394e7bac01b2491da998288ec971419a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Altitude</topic><topic>Aquatic Pollution</topic><topic>Atmospheric Sciences</topic><topic>Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Climate</topic><topic>Constellations</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Equatorial regions</topic><topic>Ground stations</topic><topic>Ionosphere</topic><topic>Math. Appl. in Environmental Science</topic><topic>Meteorology</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Radio occultation</topic><topic>Refractive index</topic><topic>Refractivity</topic><topic>Terrestrial Pollution</topic><topic>Waste Water Technology</topic><topic>Water Management</topic><topic>Water Pollution Control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nzeagwu, J. N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Urama, J. O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chukwude, A. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okoh, D. I.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Meteorology and atmospheric physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nzeagwu, J. N.</au><au>Urama, J. O.</au><au>Chukwude, A. E.</au><au>Okoh, D. I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative assessment of radio occultation-based refractivity measurements from the COSMIC mission and in-situ atmospheric measurements in equatorial Africa</atitle><jtitle>Meteorology and atmospheric physics</jtitle><stitle>Meteorol Atmos Phys</stitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>133</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1545</spage><epage>1554</epage><pages>1545-1554</pages><issn>0177-7971</issn><eissn>1436-5065</eissn><abstract>The growing technological needs for multi-instrument datasets require proper understanding of the behaviour of the datasets relative to each other. This paper presents the first results of analysis on the relationship between in-situ ground refractivity measurements and Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) refractivity measurements in the African equatorial region. In-situ measurements of surface refractivity obtained from four atmospheric ground stations in the region are compared with COSMIC-1 refractivity measurements at 1 km altitude. The in-situ datasets cover the periods from years 2007 to 2014, and corresponding COSMIC-1 datasets over the same period was used. Datasets from the recently launched COSMIC-2 mission (October 2019–September 2020) were utilized to show that the typical differences between refractivity values measured at 0 and 1 km altitudes are about 48 N-units. Interestingly, time-coincident measurements from COSMIC-1 (at 1 km altitude) and from ground in-situ measurements indicate that there is a similar typical difference (about 52 N-units) between refractivity values at the two altitudes. The reason for using COSMIC-2 measurements is that the altitudes covered by COSMIC-1 measurements start from a minimum of 0.1 km, and even at this altitude, the COSMIC-1 measurements are very scanty that there are no coincident observations with the in-situ ground stations. This is why it became imperative to first use COSMIC-2 measurements which cover altitudes from as low as 0 km. The reason is to validate that the difference between COSMIC measurements at 0 and 1 km altitudes are equivalent/comparable to difference between in-situ ground measurements and COSMIC measurements at 1 km. These results indicate that the COSMIC measurements at 0 km are comparable to the in-situ ground measurements.</abstract><cop>Vienna</cop><pub>Springer Vienna</pub><doi>10.1007/s00703-021-00827-9</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0177-7971 |
ispartof | Meteorology and atmospheric physics, 2021-10, Vol.133 (5), p.1545-1554 |
issn | 0177-7971 1436-5065 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2573640866 |
source | Springer Online Journals Complete |
subjects | Altitude Aquatic Pollution Atmospheric Sciences Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Climate Constellations Datasets Earth and Environmental Science Earth Sciences Equatorial regions Ground stations Ionosphere Math. Appl. in Environmental Science Meteorology Original Paper Radio occultation Refractive index Refractivity Terrestrial Pollution Waste Water Technology Water Management Water Pollution Control |
title | Comparative assessment of radio occultation-based refractivity measurements from the COSMIC mission and in-situ atmospheric measurements in equatorial Africa |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T16%3A49%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20assessment%20of%20radio%20occultation-based%20refractivity%20measurements%20from%20the%20COSMIC%20mission%20and%20in-situ%20atmospheric%20measurements%20in%20equatorial%20Africa&rft.jtitle=Meteorology%20and%20atmospheric%20physics&rft.au=Nzeagwu,%20J.%20N.&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=133&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1545&rft.epage=1554&rft.pages=1545-1554&rft.issn=0177-7971&rft.eissn=1436-5065&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00703-021-00827-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2573640866%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2573640866&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |