English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Radar refractivity retrievals can capture near-surface humidity changes, but noisy phase changes of the ground clutter returns limit the accuracy for both klystron- and magnetron-based systems. Observations with a C-band (5.6 cm) magnetron weather radar indicate that the correction for phase changes introduced by local oscillator frequency changes leads to refractivity errors no larger than 0.25 N units: equivalent to a relative humidity change of only 0.25% at 20°C. Requested stable local oscillator (STALO) frequency changes were accurate to 0.002 ppm based on laboratory measurements. More serious are the random phase change errors introduced when targets are not at the range-gate center and there are changes in the transmitter frequency (ΔfTx) or the refractivity (ΔN). Observations at C band with a 2-μs pulse show an additional 66° of phase change noise for a ΔfTx of 190 kHz (34 ppm); this allows the effect due to ΔN to be predicted. Even at S band with klystron transmitters, significant phase c...

Quantifying Errors due to Frequency Changes and Target Location Uncertainty for Radar Refractivity Retrievals