4.7 Article

Analysis and Inter-Calibration of Wet Path Delay Datasets to Compute the Wet Tropospheric Correction for CryoSat-2 over Ocean

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 4977-5005

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs5104977

关键词

satellite altimetry; CryoSat-2; wet tropospheric correction; total column water vapour; microwave radiometer; sensor calibration

资金

  1. ESA STSE (Support to Science Element) Program
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the COMPETE-Operational Competitiveness Program
  3. FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology [PEst-C/MAR/LA0015/2013]
  4. NASA Earth Science MEaSUREs Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unlike most altimetric missions, CryoSat-2 is not equipped with an onboard microwave radiometer (MWR) to provide wet tropospheric correction (WTC) to radar altimeter measurements, thus, relying on a model-based one provided by the European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). In the ambit of ESA funded project CP4O, an improved WTC for CryoSat-2 data over ocean is under development, based on a data combination algorithm (DComb) through objective analysis of WTC values derived from all existing global-scale data types. The scope of this study is the analysis and inter-calibration of the large dataset of total column water vapor (TCWV) products from scanning MWR aboard Remote Sensing (RS) missions for use in the WTC computation for CryoSat-2. The main issues regarding the computation of the WTC from all TCWV products are discussed. The analysis of the orbital parameters of CryoSat-2 and all other considered RS missions, their sensor characteristics and inter-calibration is presented, providing an insight into the expected impact of these datasets on the WTC estimation. The most suitable approach for calculating the WTC from TCWV is investigated. For this type of application, after calibration with respect to an appropriate reference, two approaches were found to give very similar results, with root mean square differences of 2 mm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据