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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Geophysical Research, Washington, DC Washington, DC, 1998-11, Vol.103 (D22), p.28701-28710 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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&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 & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & 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 |