z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Estimating the uncertainty of using GPS radio occultation data for climate monitoring: Intercomparison of CHAMP refractivity climate records from 2002 to 2006 from different data centers
Author(s) -
Ho Shupeng,
Kirchengast Gottfried,
Leroy Stephen,
Wickert Jens,
Mannucci Anthony J.,
Steiner Andrea,
Hunt Doug,
Schreiner William,
Sokolovskiy Sergey,
Ao Chi,
Borsche Michael,
von Engeln Axel,
Foelsche Ulrich,
Heise Stefan,
Iijima Byron,
Kuo YingHwa,
Kursinski Rob,
Pirscher Barbara,
Ringer Mark,
Rocken Chris,
Schmidt Torsten
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.67
H-Index - 298
eISSN - 2156-2202
pISSN - 0148-0227
DOI - 10.1029/2009jd011969
Subject(s) - radio occultation , environmental science , global positioning system , meteorology , standard deviation , sampling (signal processing) , remote sensing , atmospheric sciences , climatology , statistics , mathematics , geography , geology , computer science , telecommunications , filter (signal processing) , computer vision
To examine the suitability of GPS radio occultation (RO) observations as a climate benchmark data set, this study aims at quantifying the structural uncertainty in GPS RO‐derived vertical profiles of refractivity and measured refractivity trends obtained from atmospheric excess phase processing and inversion procedures. Five years (2002–2006) of monthly mean climatologies (MMC) of retrieved refractivity from the experiment aboard the German satellite CHAMP generated by four RO operational centers were compared. Results show that the absolute values of fractional refractivity anomalies among the centers are, in general, ≤0.2% from 8 to 25 km altitude. The median absolute deviations among the centers are less than 0.2% globally. Because the differences in fractional refractivity produced by the four centers are, in general, unchanging with time, the uncertainty of the trend for fractional refractivity anomalies among centers is ±0.04% per 5 years globally. The primary cause of the trend uncertainty is due to different quality control methods used by the four centers, which yield different sampling errors for different centers. We used the National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysis in the same period to estimate sampling errors. After removing the sampling errors, the uncertainty of the trend for fractional refractivity anomalies among centers is between −0.03 and 0.01% per 5 years. Thus 0.03% per 5 years can be considered an upper bound in the processing scheme–induced uncertainty for global refractivity trend monitoring. Systematic errors common to all centers are not discussed in this article but are generally believed to be small.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here