4.5 Article

Surface and Tropospheric Water Vapor Variability and Decadal Trends at Two Supersites of CO-PDD (Cezeaux and Puy de Dome) in Central France

期刊

ATMOSPHERE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos9080302

关键词

atmospheric water vapor; cycles and variability; climatology; decenal trends

资金

  1. University Clermont-Auvergne (UCA)
  2. French institute for research (CNRS-INSU)
  3. French space national center (CNES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present an analysis of decadal in situ and remote sensing observations of water vapor over the Cezeaux and puy de Dome, located in central France (45 degrees N, 3 degrees E), in order to document the variability, cycles and trends of surface and tropospheric water vapor at different time scales and the geophysical processes responsible for the water vapor distributions. We use meteorological stations, GPS (Global Positioning System), and lidar datasets, supplemented with three remote sources of water vapor (COSMIC-radio-occultation, ERA-interim-ECMWF numerical model, and AIRS-satellite). The annual cycle of water vapor is clearly established for the two sites of different altitudes and for all types of measurement. Cezeaux and puy de Dome present almost no diurnal cycle, suggesting that the variability of surface water vapor at this site is more influenced by a sporadic meteorological system than by regular diurnal variations. The lidar dataset shows a greater monthly variability of the vertical distribution than the COSMIC and AIRS satellite products. The Cezeaux site presents a positive trend for the GPS water vapor total column (0.42 +/- 0.45 g.kg(-1)/decade during 2006-2017) and a significant negative trend for the surface water vapor mixing ratio (-0.16 +/- 0.09 mm/decade during 2002-2017). The multi-linear regression analysis shows that continental forcings (East Atlantic Pattern and East Atlantic-West Russia Pattern) have a greater influence than oceanic forcing (North Atlantic Oscillation) on the water vapor variations.

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

4.5
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