Accuracy of absolute precipitable water vapor estimates from GPS observations

We present GPS, radiosonde and microwave radiometer (MWR) estimates of precipitable water vapor (PW) at Cape Grim, Tasmania, during November and December 1995. The rms differences between GPS and radiosonde, MWR and radiosonde and GPS and MWR estimates of PW were 1.5 mm, 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm, respectiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC Washington, DC, 1998-11, Vol.103 (D22), p.28701-28710
Hauptverfasser: Tregoning, Paul, Boers, Reinout, O'Brien, Denis, Hendy, Martin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 28710
container_issue D22
container_start_page 28701
container_title Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC
container_volume 103
creator Tregoning, Paul
Boers, Reinout
O'Brien, Denis
Hendy, Martin
description We present GPS, radiosonde and microwave radiometer (MWR) estimates of precipitable water vapor (PW) at Cape Grim, Tasmania, during November and December 1995. The rms differences between GPS and radiosonde, MWR and radiosonde and GPS and MWR estimates of PW were 1.5 mm, 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm, respectively, whilst the biases between the three systems were ∼0.2 mm. However, there are occasions when the amount of PW was underestimated by GPS whilst at other times was over‐estimated by MWR. The average overlap error of the GPS estimates of PW between adjacent daily solutions is related to the orbit overlap error and we removed a 2 mm bias introduced using International GPS Service orbits by estimating more accurate global orbits. The discrepancies of up to 3–4 mm between the MWR and GPS systems are not caused by rain, waveguide losses, varying waveguide temperature, detector non‐linearity or inaccurate estimates of the mean radiating temperature of the atmosphere. However, small differences between mapping functions at low elevations can produce biases comparable with the bias between the two systems. Consequently, we suspect that the biases arise because the mapping functions do not represent the localized atmospheric conditions at Cape Grim. The most accurate GPS estimates are achieved when the GPS analysis contains station separations of more than 2000 km, an elevation cutoff angle of 12° is used and the CFA2.2 wet mapping function is used to map the wet delay at any angle to the delay in the zenith.
doi_str_mv 10.1029/98JD02516
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18108954</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>18108954</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5084-37d220b4f33839794966fe6ce7ce39e46e0a9e8b2fbe0c96f20e787baa3571973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWNSF_yALEVyM5jV5LMVHq_h-LkMm3sDotBmTqbX_3pGWuvJuLhe-czj3ILRLySElzBwZfXlKWEnlGhowWsqCMcLW0YBQoQvCmNpEOzm_k35EKQWhA3R97P00OT_HMWBX5dhMO8BtAl-3deeqBvDMdZDwl2tjwpC7etzfGYcUx3h494hjlSF9ua6Ok7yNNoJrMuws9xZ6Pj97OhkVV7fDi5Pjq8KXRIuCq7c-WSUC55obZYSRMoD0oDxwA0ICcQZ0xUIFxBsZGAGlVeUcLxU1im-h_YVvm-LntA9lx3X20DRuAnGaLdWUaFOKHjxYgD7FnBME26b-gTS3lNjfzuyqs57dW5q67F0Tkpv4Ov8JpJBa6B47WmCzuoH5_372cvhwKqn6DVEsFHXu4HulcOnDSsVVaV9vhlbdP929jM7vLeU_e5qH6A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>18108954</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of absolute precipitable water vapor estimates from GPS observations</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Tregoning, Paul ; Boers, Reinout ; O'Brien, Denis ; Hendy, Martin</creator><creatorcontrib>Tregoning, Paul ; Boers, Reinout ; O'Brien, Denis ; Hendy, Martin</creatorcontrib><description>We present GPS, radiosonde and microwave radiometer (MWR) estimates of precipitable water vapor (PW) at Cape Grim, Tasmania, during November and December 1995. The rms differences between GPS and radiosonde, MWR and radiosonde and GPS and MWR estimates of PW were 1.5 mm, 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm, respectively, whilst the biases between the three systems were ∼0.2 mm. However, there are occasions when the amount of PW was underestimated by GPS whilst at other times was over‐estimated by MWR. The average overlap error of the GPS estimates of PW between adjacent daily solutions is related to the orbit overlap error and we removed a 2 mm bias introduced using International GPS Service orbits by estimating more accurate global orbits. The discrepancies of up to 3–4 mm between the MWR and GPS systems are not caused by rain, waveguide losses, varying waveguide temperature, detector non‐linearity or inaccurate estimates of the mean radiating temperature of the atmosphere. However, small differences between mapping functions at low elevations can produce biases comparable with the bias between the two systems. Consequently, we suspect that the biases arise because the mapping functions do not represent the localized atmospheric conditions at Cape Grim. The most accurate GPS estimates are achieved when the GPS analysis contains station separations of more than 2000 km, an elevation cutoff angle of 12° is used and the CFA2.2 wet mapping function is used to map the wet delay at any angle to the delay in the zenith.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0148-0227</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2156-2202</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/98JD02516</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Earth, ocean, space ; Exact sciences and technology ; External geophysics ; Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models</subject><ispartof>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC, 1998-11, Vol.103 (D22), p.28701-28710</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1998 by the American Geophysical Union.</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5084-37d220b4f33839794966fe6ce7ce39e46e0a9e8b2fbe0c96f20e787baa3571973</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5084-37d220b4f33839794966fe6ce7ce39e46e0a9e8b2fbe0c96f20e787baa3571973</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F98JD02516$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F98JD02516$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,1411,1427,11493,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46443,46808,46867</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1646848$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tregoning, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boers, Reinout</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Brien, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hendy, Martin</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of absolute precipitable water vapor estimates from GPS observations</title><title>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC</title><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><description>We present GPS, radiosonde and microwave radiometer (MWR) estimates of precipitable water vapor (PW) at Cape Grim, Tasmania, during November and December 1995. The rms differences between GPS and radiosonde, MWR and radiosonde and GPS and MWR estimates of PW were 1.5 mm, 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm, respectively, whilst the biases between the three systems were ∼0.2 mm. However, there are occasions when the amount of PW was underestimated by GPS whilst at other times was over‐estimated by MWR. The average overlap error of the GPS estimates of PW between adjacent daily solutions is related to the orbit overlap error and we removed a 2 mm bias introduced using International GPS Service orbits by estimating more accurate global orbits. The discrepancies of up to 3–4 mm between the MWR and GPS systems are not caused by rain, waveguide losses, varying waveguide temperature, detector non‐linearity or inaccurate estimates of the mean radiating temperature of the atmosphere. However, small differences between mapping functions at low elevations can produce biases comparable with the bias between the two systems. Consequently, we suspect that the biases arise because the mapping functions do not represent the localized atmospheric conditions at Cape Grim. The most accurate GPS estimates are achieved when the GPS analysis contains station separations of more than 2000 km, an elevation cutoff angle of 12° is used and the CFA2.2 wet mapping function is used to map the wet delay at any angle to the delay in the zenith.</description><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>External geophysics</subject><subject>Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models</subject><issn>0148-0227</issn><issn>2156-2202</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWNSF_yALEVyM5jV5LMVHq_h-LkMm3sDotBmTqbX_3pGWuvJuLhe-czj3ILRLySElzBwZfXlKWEnlGhowWsqCMcLW0YBQoQvCmNpEOzm_k35EKQWhA3R97P00OT_HMWBX5dhMO8BtAl-3deeqBvDMdZDwl2tjwpC7etzfGYcUx3h494hjlSF9ua6Ok7yNNoJrMuws9xZ6Pj97OhkVV7fDi5Pjq8KXRIuCq7c-WSUC55obZYSRMoD0oDxwA0ICcQZ0xUIFxBsZGAGlVeUcLxU1im-h_YVvm-LntA9lx3X20DRuAnGaLdWUaFOKHjxYgD7FnBME26b-gTS3lNjfzuyqs57dW5q67F0Tkpv4Ov8JpJBa6B47WmCzuoH5_372cvhwKqn6DVEsFHXu4HulcOnDSsVVaV9vhlbdP929jM7vLeU_e5qH6A</recordid><startdate>19981127</startdate><enddate>19981127</enddate><creator>Tregoning, Paul</creator><creator>Boers, Reinout</creator><creator>O'Brien, Denis</creator><creator>Hendy, Martin</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>KL.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19981127</creationdate><title>Accuracy of absolute precipitable water vapor estimates from GPS observations</title><author>Tregoning, Paul ; Boers, Reinout ; O'Brien, Denis ; Hendy, Martin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5084-37d220b4f33839794966fe6ce7ce39e46e0a9e8b2fbe0c96f20e787baa3571973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>External geophysics</topic><topic>Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tregoning, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boers, Reinout</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Brien, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hendy, Martin</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tregoning, Paul</au><au>Boers, Reinout</au><au>O'Brien, Denis</au><au>Hendy, Martin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of absolute precipitable water vapor estimates from GPS observations</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC</jtitle><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><date>1998-11-27</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>103</volume><issue>D22</issue><spage>28701</spage><epage>28710</epage><pages>28701-28710</pages><issn>0148-0227</issn><eissn>2156-2202</eissn><abstract>We present GPS, radiosonde and microwave radiometer (MWR) estimates of precipitable water vapor (PW) at Cape Grim, Tasmania, during November and December 1995. The rms differences between GPS and radiosonde, MWR and radiosonde and GPS and MWR estimates of PW were 1.5 mm, 1.3 mm and 1.4 mm, respectively, whilst the biases between the three systems were ∼0.2 mm. However, there are occasions when the amount of PW was underestimated by GPS whilst at other times was over‐estimated by MWR. The average overlap error of the GPS estimates of PW between adjacent daily solutions is related to the orbit overlap error and we removed a 2 mm bias introduced using International GPS Service orbits by estimating more accurate global orbits. The discrepancies of up to 3–4 mm between the MWR and GPS systems are not caused by rain, waveguide losses, varying waveguide temperature, detector non‐linearity or inaccurate estimates of the mean radiating temperature of the atmosphere. However, small differences between mapping functions at low elevations can produce biases comparable with the bias between the two systems. Consequently, we suspect that the biases arise because the mapping functions do not represent the localized atmospheric conditions at Cape Grim. The most accurate GPS estimates are achieved when the GPS analysis contains station separations of more than 2000 km, an elevation cutoff angle of 12° is used and the CFA2.2 wet mapping function is used to map the wet delay at any angle to the delay in the zenith.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/98JD02516</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0148-0227
ispartof Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC, 1998-11, Vol.103 (D22), p.28701-28710
issn 0148-0227
2156-2202
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18108954
source Wiley Free Content; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Earth, ocean, space
Exact sciences and technology
External geophysics
Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models
title Accuracy of absolute precipitable water vapor estimates from GPS observations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T22%3A59%3A07IST&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=Accuracy%20of%20absolute%20precipitable%20water%20vapor%20estimates%20from%20GPS%20observations&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Geophysical%20Research,%20Washington,%20DC&rft.au=Tregoning,%20Paul&rft.date=1998-11-27&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=D22&rft.spage=28701&rft.epage=28710&rft.pages=28701-28710&rft.issn=0148-0227&rft.eissn=2156-2202&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/98JD02516&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E18108954%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=18108954&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true