By Topic

Comparison of MM5 integrated water vapor with microwave radiometer, GPS, and radiosonde measurements

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$33 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

7 Author(s)
Memmo, A. ; Center of Excellence, Univ. of L''Aquila, Coppito, Italy ; Fionda, E. ; Paolucci, T. ; Cimini, D.
more authors

A large dataset of concurrent integrated precipitable water vapor (IPWV) estimates from ground-based microwave radiometers (MWRs), global positioning system (GPS) ground-receivers, and radiosonde observations (RAOBs) has been collected in five different sites in Central Italy. Both MWRs and GPS have shown a capability of accurate and continuous water vapor monitoring. These data are used to study the seasonal and spatial variability of IPWV. A comparison of these data with the IPWV field produced operationally by the nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (MM5), running at the University of L'Aquila/Center of Excellence (CETEMPS) is performed in order to find either model shortcomings and to corroborate the IPWV behavior highlighted by the measurements. Both measurements and model outputs span over a period of about one year allowing for a systematic statistical analysis for all the examined stations. The statistical analysis shows a good agreement between GPS and MWR data, whereas discrepancies are found between RAOBs and the other techniques. The IPWV shows the largest diurnal variability, approximately 3%, during the summer season. An overall good agreement is found between the forecasted and observed IPWV. The related statistical parameters show a very low bias (0.001 cm) with a good correlation coefficient (0.939). On the other hands, the seasonal analyses highlight a few discrepancies, mostly due to the MM5 difficulties in correctly forecasting the diurnal cycle.

Published in:

Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:43 ,  Issue: 5 )