3.8 Article

Evaluation of GPS precipitable water over Canada and the IGS network

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 153-166

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JAM-2201.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Precipitable water (PW) derived from the GPS zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) is evaluated (as a first step toward variational data assimilation) through comparison with that of collocated radiosondes (RS_PW), operational analyses, and 6-h forecasts (from the Canadian Global Environmental Multiscale model) of the Canadian Meteorological Centre. Two sources of ZTD data are considered: 1) final ZTD (over Canada), computed by the Geodetic Survey Division (GSD) of Natural Resources Canada, and 2) final ZTD (distributed globally), obtained from the International GPS Service (IGS). The mean GSD GPS-derived PW (GPS_PW) is 14.9 mm (reflecting the relatively cold Canadian climate), whereas that of the IGS dataset is 20.8 mm. Intercomparison statistics [correlation, standard deviation (SD), and bias] between GPS_PW and RS_PW are, respectively, 0.97, 2.04 mm, and 1.35 mm for the GSD data and 0.98, 2.6 mm, and 0.67 mm for the IGS data. Comparisons of GPS_PW with 6-h forecast PW (TRIAL_PW) show slightly lower correlations and a higher SD. The increase in SD is greater for the IGS data, which is not surprising, because in regions such as the Tropics and subtropics, moisture forecasts are of a lower quality and the RS observation network is sparse. From a three-way intercomparison (IGS GPS_PW, RS_PW, and TRIAL_PW) of the SD statistics, it is found that GPS_PW has the lowest estimated PW error (approximate to1 mm) for PW in the 5-30-mm range. For PW greater than 30 mm, the RS_PW estimated error is approximate to2 mm, and that of GPS_PW is approximate to2.5 mm. The TRIAL_PW estimated error increases with PW, reaching 5.5 mm in the 40-55-mm PW range. These intercomparison results indicate that GPS-PW should be a useful source of humidity information for NWP applications.

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

3.8
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