2021
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-52171-4_36
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GNSS Water Vapor Tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The new version of the Miranda and Mateus (2021, 2022) algorithm, with local estimates of the regional scale height of water vapor, appears to be able to replicate the vertical profile of water vapor density with smaller errors than other methods (Bender & Dick, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021), even when those methods incorporate non‐GNSS data and in many cases are evaluated against indirect data such as reanalysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The new version of the Miranda and Mateus (2021, 2022) algorithm, with local estimates of the regional scale height of water vapor, appears to be able to replicate the vertical profile of water vapor density with smaller errors than other methods (Bender & Dick, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021), even when those methods incorporate non‐GNSS data and in many cases are evaluated against indirect data such as reanalysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The new mean tomography RMSE is approaching typical RMSE values of in situ observations and compares very well with other algorithms (cf. Bender & Dick, 2021). Some extra details of the tomographic inversion are described in Text S2 of the Supporting Information S1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Its direct impact in the quality of weather forecasting has been found to be positive, but modest (e.g., Mateus et al., 2018), especially in comparison with similar but much higher resolution PWV fields from InSAR (Mateus & Miranda, 2022; Miranda et al., 2019). Unlike InSAR, however, GNSS data can be explored to estimate vertical profiles of water vapor density, and different tomographic algorithms have been proposed (e.g., Bender et al., 2011; Champollion et al., 2004; Flores et al., 2000; Nilsson et al., 2007; Van Baelen et al., 2011, for a review cf., Bender & Dick, 2021), generally combining observations corresponding to the different paths (slants) connecting each station with each available satellite (Slant Integrated Water Vapor, SIWV) with a set of extra data coming from other sensors, and from numerical weather prediction models, with various conditions constraining the variability of water vapor within the tomographic domain. As a result of the complex set of data and constraints required by those algorithms to converge to sensible solutions, the added value of tomography has also been limited, and too sensitive to the quality of its first guess.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The wet tropospheric delay measurements contain information about the structure of the wet refractivity index in the atmosphere; therefore, spatial and temporal structure of the wet refractivity index can be estimated from the wet tropospheric delay measurements in a dense network of GNSS stations using a tomographic approach [6]. Tregoning [7] evaluated the capability of Global Positioning System (GPS) for estimating the water vapor and other tropospheric components by comparing the estimates with radiosonde measurements. Bevis [8] and Emardson [3] compared water vapor estimated from GPS observations with radiometer data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%