4.6 Article

Radio occultation bending angle and impact parameter errors caused by horizontal refractive index gradients in the troposphere: A simulation study

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
Volume 106, Issue D11, Pages 11875-11889

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2001JD900050

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radio occultation (RO) bending angle and impact parameter values are derived from a Doppler shift measurement, assuming spherical symmetry. The purpose of this work is to illustrate the errors that arise when this assumption is not valid. Doppler shift values have been simulated for ray paths through a three-dimensional refractive index field derived from a mesoscale model forecast, which has a horizontal grid of 12 km by 12 km, and includes water vapor. These have then been inverted, making the spherical symmetry assumption. It is demonstrated that refractive index gradients perpendicular to the ray path can cause errors in both the bending angle and impact parameter values, but the latter is the more significant. It is shown that the impact parameter value at the tangent point can differ by around similar to 100 m from the derived value. This can cause an effective bending angle error exceeding N 10% near the surface. A statistical analysis of the errors caused by horizontal gradients for simulations through 54 mesoscale forecasts, using fixed spacecraft trajectories and tangent point locations, is presented. In general, the bending angle errors are found to be similar to 3% near the surface. A new set of analytical expressions for errors has been derived. These are based on integrating the horizontal gradients along the ray path and are found to be in good agreement with the simulation results. The implications of this work for the assimilation of RO data into numerical weather prediction models are discussed and areas of future work are outlined.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available