Accuracy assessment and correction of Vaisala RS92 radiosonde water vapor measurements

278 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.

Evaluation of AERONET precipitable water vapor versus microwave radiometry, GPS, and radiosondes at ARM sites (2014, background): “…in radiosondes, they are affected bymany uncertainties such as the time to ascend (~1h), the “dry bias” during daytime [e.g.,Turner et al., 2003;Miloshevich et al., 2006, 2009; Cady-Pereira et al., 2008], the dependence of response time on atmospheric temperature [e.g., Miloshevich et al.,…”
Tropospheric water vapor, convection, and climate (2010, unknown): “Accuracy problems with radiosonde humidity observations have been severe, however, with models of the most commonly used sonde showing dry biases of up to 20% in the middle troposphere even within the last decade [see Miloshevich et al., 2009].”
Analysis of cloud layer structure in Shouxian, China using RS92 radiosonde aided by 95 GHz cloud radar (2010, background): “The third factor is the dry bias at high altitudes that exists in RH measurements made by RS92 radiosondes [Miloshevich et al., 2009].”
Evidence of liquid dependent ice nucleation in high‐latitude stratiform clouds from surface remote sensors (2011, background): “These sondes may exhibit dry biases at low T [e.g., Miloshevich et al., 2009 ].”