Comparison of precipitable water vapor derived from radiosonde, GPS, and Moderate‐Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer measurements

By Zhenhong Li, J. Muller, P. Cross. 2003

263 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Statistical comparison of InSAR tropospheric correction techniques (2015, result): “…ð4Þ This can nowbe further rewritten in terms of the spectrometer delay as: ϕwettropo ¼ −4π λ Π cosθ PWV; ð5Þ where Π is a conversion factor (Bevis et al., 1992; Niell et al., 2001; Li et al., 2003; Li et al., 2006b), typically around 6.2, that varies with the temperature of the troposphere,…”
Advanced InSAR atmospheric correction: MERIS/MODIS combination and stacked water vapour models (2009, methodology): “…to overestimate water vapour compared with Global Positioning System (GPS) ground-based receivers by a scale factor of 1.05, indicating that MODIS water vapour products should be calibrated (e.g. using a linear model) before being applied to correct InSAR water vapour effects (Li et al. 2003).”
Generation of real‐time mode high‐resolution water vapor fields from GPS observations (2017, methodology): “…pointwise GPS PWVmeasurements agree to those from radiosondes and microwave radiometers with standard deviations of about 1–2mm [e.g., Ohtani and Naito, 2000; Liou et al., 2001; Li et al., 2003] and may then be interpolated to provide PWV fields, which has been attempted by using different models.”