Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (192)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = GNSS meteorology

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
26 pages, 10852 KiB  
Article
The VMD-Informer-BiLSTM-EAA Hybrid Model for Predicting Zenith Tropospheric Delay
by Zhengdao Yuan, Xu Lin, Yashi Xu, Ruiting Dai, Cong Yang, Lunwei Zhao and Yakun Han
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(4), 672; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17040672 - 16 Feb 2025
Viewed by 174
Abstract
Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) is a significant source of atmospheric error in the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Developing a high-accuracy ZTD prediction model is essential for both GNSS positioning and GNSS meteorology. To address the challenges of incomplete information extraction and gradient [...] Read more.
Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) is a significant source of atmospheric error in the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Developing a high-accuracy ZTD prediction model is essential for both GNSS positioning and GNSS meteorology. To address the challenges of incomplete information extraction and gradient explosion present in current single and combined neural network models that utilize serial ensemble learning, this study proposes a VMD-Informer-BiLSTM-EAA hybrid model based on a parallel ensemble learning strategy. Additionally, it takes into account the non-stationarity of the ZTD sequence. The model employs the Variational Mode Decomposition (VMD) method to address the non-stationarity of ZTD. It utilizes both the informer and Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM) architectures to learn ZTD data in parallel, effectively capturing both long-term trends and short-term dynamic changes. The features are then fused using the Efficient Additive Attention (EAA) mechanism, which assigns weights to create a more comprehensive representation of the ZTD data. This enhanced representation ultimately leads to improved predictions of ZTD values. We fill in the missing parts of the GNSS-derived ZTD using the ZTD data from ERA5, sourced from the IGS stations in the Australian region, specifically at 12 IGS stations. These interpolated data are then used to develop a VMD-Informer-BiLSTM-EAA hybrid model for ZTD predictions with a one-year forecast horizon. We applied this model to predict the ZTD for each IGS station in our study area for the year 2021. The numerical results indicate that our model outperforms several comparative models, such as VMD–Informer, Transformer, BiLSTM and GPT3, based on the following key metrics: a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 1.43 cm, a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 1.15 cm, a Standard Deviation (STD) of 1.33 cm and a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.96. Furthermore, our model reduces the training time by 8.2% compared to the Transformer model, demonstrating superior prediction performance and robustness in long-term ZTD forecasting. This study introduces a novel approach for high-accuracy ZTD modeling, which is significantly beneficial for precise GNSS positioning and the detection of water vapor content. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue BDS/GNSS for Earth Observation: Part II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The model architecture for the Informer mode. Source: Reference [<a href="#B57-remotesensing-17-00672" class="html-bibr">57</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The model architecture of BiLSTM. Source: Reference [<a href="#B56-remotesensing-17-00672" class="html-bibr">56</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The structure of the EAA mechanism. Source: Reference [<a href="#B54-remotesensing-17-00672" class="html-bibr">54</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>A map of the study area. The blue dots represent the locations of the IGS stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the box plots of ZTD before and after interpolation for each IGS station used in this study. The line in the middle of the boxes represents the mean level of the data. In contrast, the upper and lower edges of the boxes correspond to the upper and lower quartiles, respectively, indicating the variability of the data. Points outside the boxes represent outliers in the data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>GNSS interpolation ZTD from 2017 to 2021 for the IGS stations selected in this study. Panels (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>), (<b>c</b>) and (<b>d</b>) represent the ALIC, HOB2, TOW2 and KARR stations, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The structure of the VMD-Informer-BiLSTM-EAA hybrid model proposed in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Flowchart of the VMD-Informer–BiLSTM-EAA hybrid ZTD prediction model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of ZTD predictions between different models. The model proposed in this paper is VMD–Informer–BiLSTM–EAA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of prediction accuracy indices of different ZTD prediction models for each station. (<b>a</b>) Comparison of RMSE without VMD method (<b>b</b>); comparison of MAE without VMD method (<b>c</b>); comparison of RMSE in the case of using the VMD method (<b>d</b>); comparison of RMSE in the case of using the VMD method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of the prediction results of the VMD-Informer–BiLSTM-EAA hybrid ZTD prediction model with the GNSS interpolation ZTD. The horizontal coordinates represent the predicted moments for each day in 2021 (0:00, 6:00, 12:00 and 18:00), and the vertical coordinates represent the ZTD values. Panels (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>), (<b>c</b>) and (<b>d</b>) represent the ALIC, KARR, MCHL and PERT stations, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 6054 KiB  
Article
Evaluation and Adjustment of Precipitable Water Vapor Products from FY-4A Using Radiosonde and GNSS Data from China
by Xiangping Chen, Yifei Yang, Wen Liu, Changzeng Tang, Congcong Ling, Liangke Huang, Shaofeng Xie and Lilong Liu
Atmosphere 2025, 16(1), 99; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16010099 - 17 Jan 2025
Viewed by 458
Abstract
The geostationary meteorological satellite Fengyun-4A (FY-4A) has rapidly advanced, generating abundant high spatiotemporal resolution atmospheric precipitable water vapor (PWV) products. However, remote sensing satellites are vulnerable to weather conditions, and these latest operational PWV products still require systematic validation. This study presents a [...] Read more.
The geostationary meteorological satellite Fengyun-4A (FY-4A) has rapidly advanced, generating abundant high spatiotemporal resolution atmospheric precipitable water vapor (PWV) products. However, remote sensing satellites are vulnerable to weather conditions, and these latest operational PWV products still require systematic validation. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of FY-4A PWV products by separately using PWV data retrieved from radiosondes (RS) and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) from 2019 to 2022 in China and the surrounding regions. The overall results indicate a significant consistency between FY-4A PWV and RS PWV as well as GNSS PWV, with mean biases of 7.21 mm and −8.85 mm, and root mean square errors (RMSEs) of 7.03 mm and 3.76 mm, respectively. In terms of spatial variability, the significant differences in mean bias and RMSE were 6.50 mm and 2.60 mm between FY-4A PWV and RS PWV in the northern and southern subregions, respectively, and 5.36 mm and 1.73 mm between FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV in the northwestern and southern subregions, respectively. The RMSE of FY-4A PWV generally increases with decreasing latitude, and the bias is predominantly negative, indicating an underestimation of water vapor. Regarding temporal differences, both the monthly and daily biases and RMSEs of FY-4A PWV are significantly higher in summer than in winter, with daily precision metrics in summer displaying pronounced peaks and irregular fluctuations. The classic seasonal, regional adjustment model effectively reduced FY-4A PWV deviations across all regions, especially in the NWC subregion with low water vapor distribution. In summary, the accuracy metrics of FY-4A PWV show distinct spatiotemporal variations compared to RS PWV and GNSS PWV, and these variations should be considered to fully realize the potential of multi-source water vapor applications. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GNSS Remote Sensing in Atmosphere and Environment (2nd Edition))
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of RS sites and GNSS sites from 2019–2022 in the research area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Observation mode of the AGRI on FY-4A satellite. The vertical axis represents UTC time in hours, while the horizontal axis represents the minutes within each hour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Fitting plots between RS PWV and FY-4A PWV from 2019 to 2022 for different regions, with correlation, annual mean bias, and RMSE values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Site distribution maps of the mean bias and mean RMSE between FY-4A PWV and RS PWV from 2019 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Histograms of annual mean bias and RMSE between FY-4A PWV and RS PWV in different regions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Seasonal average distribution of FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV for 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Fitting plots between FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV from 2019 to 2022 for different regions, with correlation, annual mean bias, and RMSE values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Site distribution maps of the mean bias and mean RMSE between FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV from 2019 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Bar charts of monthly mean bias and RMSE for four seasons between FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV from 2019–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Box plots of monthly mean bias and RMSE between FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV from 2019–2022 in different regions. Q1 and Q3 of the box are the first and third quartiles, respectively. The distance between Q1 and Q3 reflects the degree of fluctuation of the data; Q2 is the median value, which reflects the average level of the data; Q4 is the outlier.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Time series of daily mean bias and RMSE between FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV in different regions from 2019 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Bar charts of the mean MAE and RMSE between FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV before and after adjustment in different regions and seasons for 2022. The length of the arrows represents the degree of improvement in mean MAE and RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Site-level distribution of seasonal average improvements in MAE and RMSE between corrected and uncorrected FY-4A PWV and GNSS PWV for 2022. IMAE and IRMSE represent the improved MAE and RMSE values, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 9503 KiB  
Article
Establishment and Evaluation of Atmospheric Water Vapor Inversion Model Without Meteorological Parameters Based on Machine Learning
by Ning Liu, Yu Shen, Shuangcheng Zhang and Xuejian Zhu
Sensors 2025, 25(2), 420; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020420 - 12 Jan 2025
Viewed by 634
Abstract
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is an important indicator to characterize the spatial and temporal variability of water vapor. A high spatial and temporal resolution of atmospheric precipitable water can be obtained using ground-based GNSS, but its inversion accuracy is usually limited by the [...] Read more.
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is an important indicator to characterize the spatial and temporal variability of water vapor. A high spatial and temporal resolution of atmospheric precipitable water can be obtained using ground-based GNSS, but its inversion accuracy is usually limited by the weighted mean temperature, Tm. For this reason, based on the data of 17 ground-based GNSS stations and water vapor reanalysis products over 2 years in the Hong Kong region, a new model for water vapor inversion without the Tm parameter is established by deep learning in this paper, the research results showed that, compared with the PWV information calculated by the traditional model using Tm parameter, the accuracy of the PWV retrieved by the new model proposed in this paper is higher, and its accuracy index parameters BIAS, MAE, and RMSE are improved by 38% on average. At the same time, the PWV was inverted by radiosonde data in the study area as a reference to verify the water vapor inversion results of the new model, and it was found that the BIAS of the new model is only 0.8 mm, which has high accuracy. Further, compared with the LSTM model, the new model is more universal when the accuracy is comparable. In addition, in order to evaluate the spatial and temporal variation characteristics of the atmospheric water vapor retrieved by the new model, based on the rainstorm event caused by typhoon in Hong Kong of September 2023, the ERA5 GSMaP rainfall products and inverted PWV information were comprehensively used for analysis. The results show that the PWV increased sharply with the arrival of the typhoon and the occurrence of a rainstorm event. After the rain stopped, the PWV gradually decreased and tended to be stable. The spatial and temporal variation in the PWV have a strong correlation with the occurrence of extreme rainstorm events. This shows that the PWV inverted by the new model can respond well to extreme rainstorm events, which proves the feasibility and reliability of the new model and provides a reference method for meteorological monitoring and weather forecasting. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Remote Sensors)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Flow char of RF_PWV model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distribution of GNSS stations and the radiosonde station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The accuracy index results of 9 GNSS stations are calculated by different water vapor models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The percentage of water vapor residuals obtained by the three models, respectively, and ERA 5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Response results of PWV and rainfall events at different stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Multipath error results of different stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>PWV time series inverted by RF_PWV model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The spatial distribution of rainfall information based on ERA5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The spatial distribution of rainfall information based on GSMaP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The spatial and temporal variation in PWV based on RF_PWV model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The spatial and temporal variation in PWV based on ERA 5.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 9084 KiB  
Article
The Investigation of Global Real-Time ZTD Estimation from GPS/Galileo PPP Based on Galileo High Accuracy Service
by Xin Chen, Xuhai Yang, Yulong Ge, Yanlong Liu and Hui Lei
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(1), 11; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17010011 - 24 Dec 2024
Viewed by 576
Abstract
Utilizing real-time precise point positioning (PPP) technology is an effective approach for obtaining high-precision zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD). Without relying on the terrestrial internet, Galileo high accuracy service (HAS) can provide precise orbit and precise clock products for the world. A thorough assessment [...] Read more.
Utilizing real-time precise point positioning (PPP) technology is an effective approach for obtaining high-precision zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD). Without relying on the terrestrial internet, Galileo high accuracy service (HAS) can provide precise orbit and precise clock products for the world. A thorough assessment of the ZTD accuracy of real-time PPP calculations based on Galileo HAS products in global regions is necessary to promote its application in the field of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) meteorology. The observation data of HAS from 1 to 7 September 2023 were selected for the experiment. Firstly, the accuracy of satellite orbit and clock products of the HAS GPS and HAS Galileo system are evaluated. Then, real-time PPP positioning accuracy within and outside the HAS service area is analyzed. Finally, 104 IGS stations in the world are selected to analyze the ZTD accuracy of real-time PPP calculations based on Galileo HAS products. The experimental results show that during the test period, the RMSE values of the satellite orbit products of the HAS GPS in the radial, along, and cross directions were 4.57 cm, 10.62 cm, and 7.56 cm, respectively. The HAS Galileo RMSE values were 2.81 cm, 8.02 cm, and 7.47 cm, respectively. The RMSE values of the clock products were 0.38 ns and 0.15 ns, respectively. At the selected stations, the real-time PPP positioning accuracies outside the HAS service area and within the service area were similar, and the correlation coefficient between HAS ZTD and IGS ZTD was above 0.90. In the global region, the average bias and RMSE values of the real-time PPP ZTD of the HAS GPS were −0.31 mm and 16.78 mm. Those of the HAS Galileo were 2.30 mm and 15.89 mm, and those of the HAS GPS/Galileo were −0.25 mm and 16.11 mm, respectively. Moreover, each system showed that the accuracy of the HAS ZTD inside the service area was better than that outside the service area. Compared with the single system, the real-time PPP ZTD continuity and stability of the dual system were better. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Satellite Missions for Earth and Planetary Exploration)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Distribution of selected IGS stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>RMSE values of orbit and clock products of the HAS GPS satellite system with IGS final products as references (The red box indicates that the RMSE value is larger than that of other satellites, and the green box indicates that it is smaller).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>RMSE values of orbit and clock products of the HAS Galileo satellite system with IGS final products as references. (The red box indicates that the RMSE value is larger than that of other satellites, and the green box indicates that it is smaller).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>HAS GPS real-time PPP positioning accuracy (Doy: 244).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>HAS Galileo real-time PPP positioning accuracy (Doy: 244).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>HAS GPS/Galileo real-time PPP positioning accuracy (Doy: 244).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Statistical results of real-time PPP positioning accuracy and convergence time based on HAS products (Subgraph (<b>A</b>) is the three-dimensional position RMSE statistical map of the selected station. Subgraph (<b>B</b>) is the statistical map of the convergence time of the selected station).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The correlation map of IGS ZTD and HAS ZTD (HAS GPS) at the selected stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The correlation map of IGS ZTD and HAS ZTD (HAS Galileo) at the selected stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The correlation map of IGS ZTD and HAS ZTD (HAS GPS/Galileo) at the selected stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The residual distribution map of HAS ZTD at the selected station with the IGS ZTD value as the reference value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The bias values of single-system and dual-system HAS ZTD at 104 IGS stations during the test period. (The upper, middle, and lower subgraphs represent the ZTD bias value distribution map of real-time PPP calculations for single GPS, single Galileo, and GPS/Galileo dual systems, respectively).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The RMSE values of single-system and dual-system HAS ZTD at 104 IGS stations during the test period. (The upper, middle, and lower subgraphs represent the ZTD RMSE value distribution map of real-time PPP calculations for single GPS, single Galileo, and GPS/Galileo dual systems, respectively).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The average bias value and RMSE value distribution of each system within and outside the HAS service area. (Subgraph (<b>A</b>) and subgraph (<b>B</b>) show the average bias value and RMSE value distribution, respectively).</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 10008 KiB  
Review
Multi-Global Navigation Satellite System for Earth Observation: Recent Developments and New Progress
by Shuanggen Jin, Xuyang Meng, Gino Dardanelli and Yunlong Zhu
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(24), 4800; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16244800 - 23 Dec 2024
Viewed by 951
Abstract
The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) has made important progress in Earth observation and applications. With the successful design of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), four global navigation satellite systems are available worldwide, together with Galileo, GLONASS, and GPS. These systems have [...] Read more.
The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) has made important progress in Earth observation and applications. With the successful design of the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), four global navigation satellite systems are available worldwide, together with Galileo, GLONASS, and GPS. These systems have been widely employed in positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT). Furthermore, GNSS refraction, reflection, and scattering signals can remotely sense the Earth’s surface and atmosphere with powerful implications for environmental remote sensing. In this paper, the recent developments and new application progress of multi-GNSS in Earth observation are presented and reviewed, including the methods of BDS/GNSS for Earth observations, GNSS navigation and positioning performance (e.g., GNSS-PPP and GNSS-NRTK), GNSS ionospheric modelling and space weather monitoring, GNSS meteorology, and GNSS-reflectometry and its applications. For instance, the static Precise Point Positioning (PPP) precision of most MGEX stations was improved by 35.1%, 18.7%, and 8.7% in the east, north, and upward directions, respectively, with PPP ambiguity resolution (AR) based on factor graph optimization. A two-layer ionospheric model was constructed using IGS station data through three-dimensional ionospheric model constraints and TEC accuracy was increased by about 20–27% with the GIM model. Ten-minute water level change with centimeter-level accuracy was estimated with ground-based multiple GNSS-R data based on a weighted iterative least-squares method. Furthermore, a cyclone and its positions were detected by utilizing the GNSS-reflectometry from the space-borne Cyclone GNSS (CYGNSS) mission. Over the years, GNSS has become a dominant technology among Earth observation with powerful applications, not only for conventional positioning, navigation and timing techniques, but also for integrated remote sensing solutions, such as monitoring typhoons, river water level changes, geological geohazard warnings, low-altitude UAV navigation, etc., due to its high performance, low cost, all time and all weather. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>PWV variation trend in different regions of China from GNSS observations (Reprinted from Ref. [<a href="#B26-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">26</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Geometric model of GNSS multipath reflectometry (GNSS-R).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Convergence time using different system combinations and ‘GBM’ products with the average floating-point solution (<b>top</b>) and fixed solution (<b>bottom</b>) at each site (Reprinted from Ref. [<a href="#B32-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">32</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The positioning-error sequence of dynamic PPP by using the ambiguity floating point solution and the ambiguity-fixed solution of real-time products (Reprinted from Ref. [<a href="#B32-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">32</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The positioning accuracy of the GPS + Galileo combined solution is improved in kinematic PPP when compared to the GPS-only and Galileo-only solutions (Reprinted from Ref. [<a href="#B33-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">33</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Static positional biases of AR and float solutions for MGEX stations on DoY 183, 2022 (Reprinted from Ref. [<a href="#B34-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">34</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The spatial distribution of TEC at 13:00 UT during DOY 80, 170, 270, and 360 in 2023 for the double-layer SH model (<b>left</b>) and GIM-IGS (<b>right</b>) (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [<a href="#B44-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">44</a>]. 2024 Jin, S.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Daily average TEC from GIM, GEDM, IRI-2020 in 2010 (<b>left</b>), and 2014 (<b>right</b>) (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [<a href="#B45-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">45</a>]. 2024 Jin, S.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Ionospheric disturbance characteristics during Typhoon Chandu, from GPS PRN32 and GLONASS PRN1 (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [<a href="#B47-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">47</a>]. 2024 Jin, S.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Estimation and evaluation of ZTD from single and multiple GNSS observations (Reprinted from Ref. [<a href="#B24-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">24</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The differences in ZTD RMSE between La Nina and non-La Nina IGS stations (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [<a href="#B48-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">48</a>]. 2024 Ye, S.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Data processing flow chart for high-frequency GNSS-R water level monitoring (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [<a href="#B50-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">50</a>]. 2022 Jin, S.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Biases (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and RMSEs (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) of the retrieved wind speed for (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) cyclone-free and (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) cyclonic conditions (Reprinted with permission from Ref. [<a href="#B54-remotesensing-16-04800" class="html-bibr">54</a>]. 2023 Zhang, G.).</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 3886 KiB  
Article
Validating CYGNSS Wind Speeds with Surface-Based Observations and Triple Collocation Analysis
by Ashley Wild, Yuriy Kuleshov, Suelynn Choy and Lucas Holden
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(24), 4702; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16244702 - 17 Dec 2024
Viewed by 619
Abstract
Existing validation of mean wind speed estimates via reflectometry from global navigation systems of satellites (GNSS-R)—has been largely limited in spatial coverage to equatorial buoys or tropical cyclone events near continental United States. Two alternative validation techniques are presented for the Cyclone GNSS [...] Read more.
Existing validation of mean wind speed estimates via reflectometry from global navigation systems of satellites (GNSS-R)—has been largely limited in spatial coverage to equatorial buoys or tropical cyclone events near continental United States. Two alternative validation techniques are presented for the Cyclone GNSS (CYGNSS) mission using surface-based observations along coasts and coral reefs instead of buoys, and triple collocation analysis (TCA) instead of a 1:1 gridded comparison for tropical cyclone (TC) events. For the surface-based analysis, Fully Developed Seas (FDS) v3.2 and NOAA v1.2 were compared to anemometer data provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology across the Australia and Pacific regions. Overall, the products performed similarly to previous studies with NOAA having higher correlations and lower errors than FDS, though FDS performed better than NOAA over the Australian dataset for high wind speed events. TCA was used to validate NOAA v1.2 and Merged v3.2 datasets with other satellite remotely sensed products from the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Both additive and multiplicative error models for TCA were applied. The performance overall was similar between the two products, with NOAA producing higher errors. NOAA performed better than Merged for mean winds above 17 m/s as the large temporal averaging reduced sensitivity to high winds. For SMAP winds above 17 m/s, NOAA’s average bias (−2.1 m/s) was significantly smaller than the average bias in Merged (−4.4 m/s). Future ideas for rapid intensification detection and constellation design are discussed. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Locations of the 22 weather stations used for surface-based analysis. Pacific 5 locations (yellow), Australia 17 locations (red).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Logarithmic density plots of matchups between CYGNSS algorithms and coastal anemometer readings in Australia and the Pacific. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) compare FDS and NOAA against the Australian hourly average winds, and (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) for the Pacific max 1 min gust. Black dashed line is 1:1, grey solid line represents best fit. Different colour bars are used for the two regions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>TC Jasper passing anemometer located in the Great Barrier Reef at Holmes Reef [−16.47, 147.87] during 11–13 December 2023 (blue), compared to CYGNSS NOAA 1.2 (red). The dot’s opacity shows the distance as calculated by the inverse geodesic problem from the weather station, meaning brighter red is closer to gauge.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Extreme wind events, defined as more than three consecutive hours above 17 m/s, compared to anemometer readings at the time. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) are the Australian dataset and (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) for the Pacific, comparing FDS, Merged and NOAA respectively with anemometer. 24 h before storm (grey), storm events (blue), 24 h after storm (red).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Density plots showing numbers of measurements at each cell used in triple collocation, with R, RMSD and bias. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) are the matchups with Merged, and (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) for the NOAA. Displaying matchups between SAR to CYGNSS, SMAP to CYGNSS, and SAR to SMAP respectively. Grey line shows linear trendline. Black line shows 1:1 value.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Density plots of each dataset to ERA5. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) are for triple collocations with CYGNSS Merged compared to ERA5, and (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) are collocations with NOAA.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Anomaly density plots showing each dataset minus ERA5. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) are for triple collocations with CYGNSS Merged compared to ERA5, and (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) are collocations with NOAA.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 5214 KiB  
Article
An Empirical Atmospheric Weighted Average Temperature Enhancement Model in the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau Considering Surface Temperature
by Yi Shen, Peicheng Li, Bingbing Zhang, Tong Wu, Junkuan Zhu, Qing Li and Wang Li
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(23), 4366; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16234366 - 22 Nov 2024
Viewed by 560
Abstract
Atmospheric weighted mean temperature (Tm) is a crucial parameter for retrieving atmospheric precipitation using the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). It plays a significant role in GNSS meteorology research. Although existing empirical models can quickly obtain Tm values for the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, their [...] Read more.
Atmospheric weighted mean temperature (Tm) is a crucial parameter for retrieving atmospheric precipitation using the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). It plays a significant role in GNSS meteorology research. Although existing empirical models can quickly obtain Tm values for the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, their accuracy is generally low due to the region’s complex environmental and climatic conditions. To address this issue, this study proposes an enhanced empirical Tm model tailored for the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau. This new model incorporates surface temperature (Ts) data and employs the least squares method to determine model coefficients, thereby improving the accuracy of the Tm empirical model. The research utilizes observational data from 16 radiosonde stations in the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau from 2010 to 2018. By integrating Ts into the Hourly Global Pressure and Temperature (HGPT2) model, we establish the enhanced empirical Tm model, referred to as YGTm. We evaluate the accuracy of the YGTm model using Tm values obtained from the 2019 radiosonde station measurements as a reference. A comparative analysis is conducted against the Bevis model, the HGPT2 model, and the regional linear model LTm. The results indicate that at the modeling stations, the proposed enhanced model improves Tm prediction accuracy by 24.9%, 16.1%, and 22.4% compared to the Bevis, HGPT2, and LTm models, respectively. At non-modeling stations, the accuracy improvements are 26.2%, 17.1% and 24.4%, respectively. Furthermore, the theoretical root mean square error and relative error from using the YGTm model for GNSS water vapor retrieval are 0.27 mm and 0.93%, respectively, both of which outperform the comparative models. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The distribution of radiosonde stations in the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau region, with red circles representing modeling stations and blue triangles indicating non-modeling stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Scatter plot of Tm and Ts differences.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Evaluation of the bias distribution maps for various Tm models using modeling station data from 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Evaluation of the RMS distribution maps for various Tm models using modeling station data from 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Results of the daily bias and RMS values for four Tm models using modeling station data from 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The bias distribution maps for various Tm models using non-modeling station data from 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The RMS distribution maps for various Tm models using non-modeling station data from 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The theoretical RMS of PWV distribution maps for four Tm models using radiosonde data from 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The theoretical relative error of PWV distribution maps for four Tm models using radiosonde data from 2019.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 6939 KiB  
Article
Methods and Evaluation of AI-Based Meteorological Models for Zenith Tropospheric Delay Prediction
by Si Xiong, Jiamu Mei, Xinchuang Xu, Ziyu Shen and Liangke Huang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(22), 4231; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224231 - 13 Nov 2024
Viewed by 1063
Abstract
Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) is a significant error source affecting the accuracy of certain space geodetic measurements. This study evaluates the performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based meteorological models, such as Fengwu and Pangu, in estimating real-time ZTD. The results from these AI [...] Read more.
Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) is a significant error source affecting the accuracy of certain space geodetic measurements. This study evaluates the performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based meteorological models, such as Fengwu and Pangu, in estimating real-time ZTD. The results from these AI models were compared with those obtained from the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), the fifth-generation European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Atmospheric Reanalysis (ERA5), and the third generation of the Global Pressure–Temperature data model (GPT3) to assess their accuracy across different time intervals, seasons, and geographic locations. The findings reveal that AI-driven models, particularly Fengwu, offer higher long-term forecasting accuracy. An analysis of data from 81 stations throughout 2023 indicates that Fengwu’s 7-day ZTD forecast achieved an RMSE of 2.85 cm when compared to GNSS-derived ZTD. However, in oceanic regions and areas with complex climatic dynamics, the Fengwu model exhibited a larger error compared to in other land regions. Additionally, seasonal variations and station altitude were found to influence the accuracy of ZTD predictions, emphasizing the need for detailed modeling in complex climatic zones. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram for obtaining ZTD using the AI meteorological model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the Fengwu meteorological model operation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The calculation process schematic diagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The schematic diagram for interpolating the interest point’s ZTD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The schematic map of GNSS station positions where the colors reflect elevation (ellipsoidal height).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Time distribution of the median error between ZTD values calculated by the ERA5, GPT3, Fengwu, and Pangu models and the GNSS-ZTD across 68 groups at 81 global stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>A box plot of the differences between AI-ZTD and the GNSS-ZTD, with each month’s data represented as a separate group.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The RMSE comparison histogram between AI-ZTD and GNSS-ZTD is shown. The data are divided into four height ranges, with the <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis representing different forecast lead times, and each data group is separated by an interval of 6 h. Height units: meters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>RMSE distribution of the comparison between AI-ZTD and GNSS-ZTD at 81 global stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Global RMSE distribution of the comparison between AI-ZTD and ERA5’s ZTD at a 1° × 1° resolution.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 4160 KiB  
Article
Enhancing Algal Bloom Level Monitoring with CYGNSS and Sentinel-3 Data
by Yan Jia, Zhiyu Xiao, Liwen Yang, Quan Liu, Shuanggen Jin, Yan Lv and Qingyun Yan
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(20), 3915; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16203915 - 21 Oct 2024
Viewed by 1403
Abstract
Algal blooms, resulting from the overgrowth of algal plankton in water bodies, pose significant environmental problems and necessitate effective remote sensing methods for monitoring. In recent years, Global Navigation Satellite System–Reflectometry (GNSS-R) has rapidly advanced and made notable contributions to many surface observation [...] Read more.
Algal blooms, resulting from the overgrowth of algal plankton in water bodies, pose significant environmental problems and necessitate effective remote sensing methods for monitoring. In recent years, Global Navigation Satellite System–Reflectometry (GNSS-R) has rapidly advanced and made notable contributions to many surface observation fields, providing new means for identifying algal blooms. Additionally, meteorological parameters such as temperature and wind speed, key factors in the occurrence of algal blooms, can aid in their identification. This paper utilized Cyclone GNSS (CYGNSS) data, Sentinel-3 OLCI data, and ECMWF Re-Analysis-5 meteorological data to retrieve Chlorophyll-a values. Machine learning algorithms were then employed to classify algal blooms for early warning based on Chlorophyll-a concentration. Experiments and validations were conducted from May 2023 to September 2023 in the Hongze Lake region of China. The results indicate that classification and early warning of algal blooms based on CYGNSS data produced reliable results. The ability of CYGNSS data to accurately reflect the severity of algal blooms opens new avenues for environmental monitoring and management. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Latest Advances and Application in the GNSS-R Field)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of averaged CYGNSS reflection points in the Hongze Lake.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flowchart of the study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flowchart of MPH to obtain <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Results of <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration retrieval based on MPH algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The map of retrieved <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration results and in situ measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relationship between retrieval results of <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration on 9 May and 14 May and measured <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration on May 11.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p><span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration values corresponding to CYGNSS reflection points, the colors (blue to red) represent increasing concentration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Accuracy of predicted <span class="html-italic">chl_a</span> concentration category by XGBoost at 1 KM resolution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Model classification confusion matrix for 2 Classes (<b>a</b>) and 3 Classes (<b>b</b>) classification criterion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Model classification confusion matrix for 4 Classes (<b>a</b>) and 5 Classes (<b>b</b>) classification criterion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Model classification confusion matrix of Guangdong local classification criterion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Accuracy of 5-fold CV of different classification methods at different spatial resolutions.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 6700 KiB  
Article
Analysis of the Response Relationship Between PWV and Meteorological Parameters Using Combined GNSS and ERA5 Data: A Case Study of Typhoon Lekima
by Ying Gao and Xiaolei Wang
Atmosphere 2024, 15(10), 1249; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15101249 - 18 Oct 2024
Viewed by 1073
Abstract
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is a crucial parameter of Earth’s atmosphere, with its spatial and temporal variations significantly impacting Earth’s energy balance and weather patterns. Particularly during meteorological disasters such as typhoons, PWV and other meteorological parameters exhibit dramatic changes. Studying the response [...] Read more.
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is a crucial parameter of Earth’s atmosphere, with its spatial and temporal variations significantly impacting Earth’s energy balance and weather patterns. Particularly during meteorological disasters such as typhoons, PWV and other meteorological parameters exhibit dramatic changes. Studying the response relationship between PWV and typhoon events, alongside other meteorological parameters, is essential for meteorological and climate analysis and research. To this end, this paper proposes a method for analyzing the response relationship between PWV and meteorological parameters based on Wavelet Coherence (WTC). Specifically, PWV and relevant meteorological parameters were obtained using GNSS and ERA5 data, and the response relationships between PWV and different meteorological parameters before and after typhoon events were studied in time–frequency domain. Considering that many GNSS stations are not equipped with meteorological monitoring equipment, this study interpolated meteorological parameters based on ERA5 data for PWV retrieval. In the experimental section, the accuracy of ERA5 meteorological parameters and the accuracy of PWV retrieval based on ERA5 were first analyzed, verifying the feasibility and effectiveness of this approach. Subsequently, using typhoon Lekima as a case study, data from six GNSS stations affected by the typhoon were selected, and the corresponding PWV was retrieved using ERA5. The WTC method was then employed to analyze the response relationship between PWV and meteorological parameters before and after the typhoon’s arrival. The results show that the correlation characteristics between PWV and pressure can reveal different stages before and after the typhoon passes, while the local characteristics between PWV and temperature better reflect regional precipitation trends. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The phase relationship diagram between series X and Y. The red area represents a positive correlation between X and Y, while the blue area represents a negative correlation. The different directions of the arrows indicate whether X leads or lags behind Y.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Geographic distribution of radiosonde and GNSS stations in China. The green triangle represents the position of radiosonde station, and the red five-pointed star represents the position of GNSS station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Spatial distribution of bias and RMS for pressure, temperature, and weighted mean temperature in China. Figure (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) show the bias for pressure (P in hPa), temperature (T in K), and weighted mean temperature (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> in K), respectively. Figure (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) illustrate the RMS for pressure (P in hPa), temperature (T in K), and weighted mean temperature (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>T</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> in K), respectively. The color bars represent the magnitude of bias and RMS across the GNSS stations in the study region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Spatial distribution of bias and RMS for precipitable water vapor (PWV) at 30 co-located stations. Figure (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) show the bias for PWV calculated without measured meteorological parameters (PWV<sub>G</sub>, in mm) and PWV derived using combined ERA5 data (PWV<sub>R</sub>, in mm), respectively. Figure (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) illustrate the RMS for PWV<sub>G</sub> and PWV<sub>R</sub>, respectively. The color bars represent the magnitude of bias and RMS across the GNSS stations in the study region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Track of typhoon Lekima and GNSS Stations in two provinces. The blue curve represents the typhoon movement route, and the red triangle represents the GNSS station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Trends in PWV, rainfall, and pressure at GNSS stations during the typhoon. The black bars represent the rainfall (in mm). The blue line indicates the precipitable water vapor (PWV in mm), and the green line shows the pressure (P in hPa). Each subfigure corresponds to different GNSS stations: (<b>a</b>) ZJWZ, (<b>b</b>) ZJJD, (<b>c</b>) ZJZS, (<b>d</b>) SDLY, (<b>e</b>) SDCY, and (<b>f</b>) TAIN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Wavelet coherence spectrum of PWV and pressure at GNSS stations during the typhoon. The thick contour marks the regions where coherence is significant at the 5% level against red noise. The cone of influence (COI), where edge effects may affect the results, is shaded lighter. Arrows indicate the relative phase relationship: arrows pointing to the right signify in-phase behavior, to the left indicate anti-phase, and upward or downward arrows denote whether PWV lags or leads pressure. Each subfigure corresponds to different GNSS stations: (<b>a</b>) ZJWZ, (<b>b</b>) ZJJD, (<b>c</b>) ZJZS, (<b>d</b>) SDLY, (<b>e</b>) SDCY, and (<b>f</b>) TAIN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Trends in PWV, rainfall, and temperature at GNSS stations during the typhoon. The black bars represent the rainfall (in mm). The blue line indicates the precipitable water vapor (PWV in mm), and the orange line shows the temperature (T in K). Each subfigure corresponds to different GNSS stations: (<b>a</b>) ZJWZ, (<b>b</b>) ZJJD, (<b>c</b>) ZJZS, (<b>d</b>) SDLY, (<b>e</b>) SDCY, and (<b>f</b>) TAIN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Wavelet coherence spectrum of PWV and temperature at GNSS stations during the typhoon. The thick contour marks the regions where coherence is significant at the 5% level against red noise. The cone of influence (COI), where edge effects may affect the results, is shaded lighter. Arrows indicate the relative phase relationship: arrows pointing to the right signify in-phase behavior, to the left indicate anti-phase, and upward or downward arrows denote whether PWV lags or leads temperature. Each subfigure corresponds to different GNSS stations: (<b>a</b>) ZJWZ, (<b>b</b>) ZJJD, (<b>c</b>) ZJZS, (<b>d</b>) SDLY, (<b>e</b>) SDCY, and (<b>f</b>) TAIN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Data processing and result distribution diagram. The green rectangular area is the flowchart of the combined GNSS and ERA5 inversion of PWV, and the purple rectangular area is the summary of the response relationship between PWV and meteorological parameters based on WTC.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 21229 KiB  
Article
The Zenith Total Delay Combination of International GNSS Service Repro3 and the Analysis of Its Precision
by Qiuying Huang, Xiaoming Wang, Haobo Li, Jinglei Zhang, Zhaowei Han, Dingyi Liu, Yaping Li and Hongxin Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(20), 3885; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16203885 - 18 Oct 2024
Viewed by 1447
Abstract
Currently, ground-based global navigation satellite system (GNSS) techniques have become widely recognized as a reliable and effective tool for atmospheric monitoring, enabling the retrieval of zenith total delay (ZTD) and precipitable water vapor (PWV) for meteorological and climate research. The International GNSS Service [...] Read more.
Currently, ground-based global navigation satellite system (GNSS) techniques have become widely recognized as a reliable and effective tool for atmospheric monitoring, enabling the retrieval of zenith total delay (ZTD) and precipitable water vapor (PWV) for meteorological and climate research. The International GNSS Service analysis centers (ACs) have initiated their third reprocessing campaign, known as IGS Repro3. In this campaign, six ACs conducted a homogeneous reprocessing of the ZTD time series spanning the period from 1994 to 2022. This paper primarily focuses on ZTD products. First, the data processing strategies and station conditions of six ACs were compared and analyzed. Then, formal errors within the data were examined, followed by the implementation of quality control processes. Second, a combination method is proposed and applied to generate the final ZTD products. The resulting combined series was compared with the time series submitted by the six ACs, revealing a mean bias of 0.03 mm and a mean root mean square value of 3.02 mm. Finally, the time series submitted by the six ACs and the combined series were compared with VLBI data, radiosonde data, and ERA5 data. In comparison, the combined solution performs better than most individual analysis centers, demonstrating higher quality. Therefore, the advanced method proposed in this study and the generated high-quality dataset have considerable implications for further advancing GNSS atmospheric sensing and offer valuable insights for climate modeling and prediction. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographic distribution of the 1331 stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Temporal evolution of the daily station count processed by each AC.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flowchart for the combination of GNSS-derived ZTD estimates from different ACs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Box plots of the formal error values of the ZTD estimated by each AC.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Before (<b>a</b>) and after (<b>b</b>) quality control, median formal errors of ZTD are estimated in daily AC solutions. All time series were smoothed by a Savitzky–Golay filter with a window size of 1 year. The numbers in the legends represent the means of the time series of daily median formal errors over the period, in mm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Weekly weight plot for each AC (the red line represents the date when selective availability was discontinued).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Combined ZTD results for AREQ (<b>a</b>) and NKLG (<b>b</b>) on 6 January 2011.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Pie chart of station status statistics.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Geographic distribution of the 212 stations (stations with a data completion rate higher than 50%, a time span longer than 15 years, and the involvement of at least three different ACs for data processing).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>RMS difference in individual AC ZTD solutions with respect to the combined solution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>RMS difference in the GRAZ station’s individual AC ZTD solutions with respect to the combined solution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Geographical distribution of the mean differences between the individual AC ZTD solutions and the combined solution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Geographical distribution of the RMS differences between the individual AC ZTD solutions and the combined solution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Geographical distribution of the STD differences between the individual AC ZTD solutions and the combined solution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Bias and STD between GNSS ZTD and ERA5 ZTD (the red line represents a third-degree polynomial fit applied to the STD values across different latitudes).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Geographic distribution of VLBI and radiosonde stations.</p>
Full article ">
31 pages, 7057 KiB  
Article
Local Gravity and Geoid Improvements around the Gavdos Satellite Altimetry Cal/Val Site
by Georgios S. Vergos, Ilias N. Tziavos, Stelios Mertikas, Dimitrios Piretzidis, Xenofon Frantzis and Craig Donlon
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(17), 3243; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16173243 - 1 Sep 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1773
Abstract
The isle of Gavdos, and its wider area, is one of the few places worldwide where the calibration and validation of altimetric satellites has been carried out during the last, more than, two decades using dedicated techniques at sea and on land. The [...] Read more.
The isle of Gavdos, and its wider area, is one of the few places worldwide where the calibration and validation of altimetric satellites has been carried out during the last, more than, two decades using dedicated techniques at sea and on land. The sea-surface calibration employed for the determination of the bias in the satellite altimeter’s sea-surface height relies on the use of a gravimetric geoid in collocation with data from tide gauges, permanent global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers, as well as meteorological and oceanographic sensors. Hence, a high-accuracy and high-resolution gravimetric geoid model in the vicinity of Gavdos and its surrounding area is of vital importance. The existence of such a geoid model resides in the availability of reliable, in terms of accuracy, and dense, in terms of spatial resolution, gravity data. The isle of Gavdos presents varying topographic characteristics with heights larger than 400 m within small spatial distances of ~7 km. The small size of the island and the significant bathymetric variations in its surrounding marine regions make the determination of the gravity field and the geoid a challenging task. Given the above, the objective of the present work was two-fold. First, to collect new land gravity data over the isle of Gavdos in order to complete the existing database and cover parts of the island where voids existed. Relative gravity campaigns have been designed to cover as homogenously as possible the entire island of Gavdos and especially areas where the topographic gradient is large. The second focus was on the determination of a high-resolution, 1×1, and high-accuracy gravimetric geoid for the wider Gavdos area, which will support activities on the determination of the absolute altimetric bias. The relative gravity campaigns have been designed and carried out employing a CG5 relative gravity meter along with geodetic grade GNSS receivers to determine the geodetic position of the acquired observations. Geoid determination has been based on the newly acquired and historical gravity data, GNSS/Leveling observations, and topography and bathymetry databases for the region. The modeling was based on the well-known remove–compute–restore (RCR) method, employing least-squares collocation (LSC) and fast Fourier transform (FFT) methods for the evaluation of the Stokes’ integral. Modeling of the long wavelength contribution has been based on EIGEN6c4 and XGM2019e global geopotential models (GGMs), while for the contribution of the topography, the residual terrain model correction has been employed using both the classical, space domain, and spectral approaches. From the results achieved, the final geoid model accuracy reached the ±1–3 cm level, while in terms of the absolute differences to the GNSS/Leveling data per baseline length, 28.4% of the differences were below the 1cmSij [km] level and 55.2% below the 2cmSij [km]. The latter improved drastically to 52.8% and 81.1%, respectively, after deterministic fit to GNSS/Leveling data, while in terms of the relative differences, the final geoid reaches relative uncertainties of 11.58 ppm (±1.2 cm) for baselines as short as 0–10 km, which improves to 10.63 ppm (±1.1 cm) after the fit. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The gravity database to be used for the geoid determination over Crete and Gavdos.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The compiled land and marine gravity data for the gravimetric geoid determination over Gavdos.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Distribution of the available GNSS/Leveling data (red triangles) for the gravimetric geoid validation over Crete and Gavdos.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Original (<b>top left</b>), reduced to EIGEN6c4 d/o 2190 (<b>top right</b>), classical RTM contribution (<b>bottom left</b>) and residual field to EIGEN6c4 d/o 2190 and classical RTM (<b>bottom right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Empirical covariance functions of the residual gravity anomaly fields after reduction to EIGEN6c4 (d/o 1000 and 2190), XGM2019e (d/o 2190) and the removal of RTM effects with the classic (RF) and spectral (HK) approach.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The final 1D-FFT gravimetric geoid model (EIGEN6c4 to d/o 2190 and classical RTM effects), its differences to the GNSS/Leveling data and the propagated geoid errors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The final LSC (area wide) gravimetric geoid model (<b>top left</b>), associated error (<b>top right</b>), its differences to the GNSS/Leveling data (<b>bottom left</b>) and differences to the 1D-FFT geoid (<b>bottom right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Relative differences in the original 1D-FFT gravimetric (circles) and fitted with the third-order polynomial (squares) geoid (<b>left</b>) and the original LSC gravimetric (circles) and fitted with the third-order polynomial (squares) geoid (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 5101 KiB  
Article
Atmospheric Water Vapor Variability over Houston: Continuous GNSS Tomography in the Year of Hurricane Harvey (2017)
by Pedro Mateus, João Catalão, Rui Fernandes and Pedro M. A. Miranda
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(17), 3205; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16173205 - 30 Aug 2024
Viewed by 869
Abstract
This study evaluates the capability of an unconstrained tomographic algorithm to capture 3D water vapor density variability throughout 2017 in Houston, U.S. The algorithm relies solely on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) observations and does not require an initial guess or other specific [...] Read more.
This study evaluates the capability of an unconstrained tomographic algorithm to capture 3D water vapor density variability throughout 2017 in Houston, U.S. The algorithm relies solely on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) observations and does not require an initial guess or other specific constraints regarding water vapor density variability within the tomographic domain. The test domain, featuring 9 km horizontal, 500 m vertical, and 30 min temporal resolutions, yielded remarkable results when compared to data retrieved from the ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5), regional Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) data, and GNSS-Radio Occultation (RO). For the first time, a time series of Precipitable Water Vapor maps derived from the Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) technique was used to validate the spatially integrated water vapor computed by GNSS tomography. Tomographic results clearly indicate the passage of Hurricane Harvey, with integrated water vapor peaking at 60 kg/m2 and increased humidity at altitudes up to 7.5 km. Our findings suggest that GNSS tomography holds promise as a reliable source of atmospheric water vapor data for various applications. Future enhancements may arise from denser and multi-constellation networks. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>GNSS tomographic 2D grid over Houston city (TX, USA). Blue triangles display the location of GPS stations used in the tomographic process, and red triangles are the stations used to obtain the absolute and calibrated InSAR PWV maps used to evaluate the tomographic solution spatial variability. The rectangles display the two footprints of Sentinel-1 used (ascending and descending orbits). The background colormap represents the elevation. The red dashed line indicates the vertical cross-section location used further on. The black line is the best track (determined by the National Hurricane Center) of Hurricane Harvey from 26 August to 29 August 2017 (hours in UTC).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>TOMO-, WRF-, and ERA5-PWV derived values at the GNSS station’s location versus the PWV estimated from GNSS observations. The black line corresponds to the perfect fit. Legend indicates the correlation and the RMSE in kg/m<sup>2</sup> (within []).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Temporal series of the average PWV over the topography domain. (<b>a</b>) Averaged WRF-, ERA5-, and TOMO-PWV; the green stars represent the PWV derived from RO. The vertical dashed lines delimit the month of August; (<b>b</b>) zoom over August. Date in month/day format.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Vertical profiles of TOMO, ERA5, and WRF assessed against 30 available GNSS-RO observations: (<b>a</b>) average water vapor density; (<b>b</b>) RMSE; (<b>c</b>) BIAS; and (<b>d</b>) temporal correlation coefficient.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>PWV maps for 29 August around 00:30 UTC (at the end of Hurricane Harvey’s passage over the Houston area): (<b>a</b>) estimated using the interferometric phase (ascending orbit); (<b>b</b>) simulated by WRF model; (<b>c</b>) derived from ERA5 reanalysis; and (<b>d</b>) obtained via GNSS tomography (area corresponding to the TOMO footprint, black rectangle in (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>)). The dotted rectangle corresponds to the InSAR footprint in ascending orbit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>TOMO and models temporal evaluation using InSAR PWV maps as the “ground truth”. (<b>a</b>) mean RMSE; (<b>b</b>) mean BIAS; and (<b>c</b>) mean correlation coefficient. Before applying the statistical metrics, a spatial bilinear resampling method (that uses the distance-weighted average of the four nearest pixel values to estimate a new pixel value) was performed to attain the TOMO spatial resolution (9 km).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Spatial evaluation using InSAR PWV maps. (<b>a</b>) Spatial RMSE for WRF; (<b>b</b>) for ERA5; and (<b>c</b>) for TOMO. (<b>d</b>) Skill score (SS) taking InSAR as “ground true”, WRF as first model, and TOMO as second; and (<b>e</b>) the same as before, but with ERA5 as the first model. The mean correlation and RMSE in kg/m<sup>2</sup> are within [].</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Hovmöller diagram of water vapor density profiles every 30 min. (<b>a</b>) WRF; (<b>b</b>) ERA5; and (<b>c</b>) TOMO solution. Averaged over the tomographic domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>An example of a vertical cross-section of the tomographic inversion for 22 August at 00:00 UTC (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), corresponding to the beginning of the hurricane’s passage over Houston, and for 28th at 00:00 UTC (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) during Harvey near peak intensity over Houston. The cross-section corresponds to the southeast–northwest red dashed line in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03205-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>. (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>) WRF; (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>) ERA5; and (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) TOMO solution.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 9590 KiB  
Article
The Evaluation of Rainfall Forecasting in a Global Navigation Satellite System-Assisted Numerical Weather Prediction Model
by Hongwu Guo, Yongjie Ma, Zufeng Li, Qingzhi Zhao and Yuan Zhai
Atmosphere 2024, 15(8), 992; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15080992 - 17 Aug 2024
Viewed by 1399
Abstract
Accurate water vapor information is crucial for improving the quality of numerical weather forecasting. Previous studies have incorporated tropospheric water vapor data obtained from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) into numerical weather models to enhance the accuracy and reliability of rainfall forecasts. [...] Read more.
Accurate water vapor information is crucial for improving the quality of numerical weather forecasting. Previous studies have incorporated tropospheric water vapor data obtained from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) into numerical weather models to enhance the accuracy and reliability of rainfall forecasts. However, research on evaluating forecast accuracy for different rainfall levels and the development of corresponding forecasting platforms is lacking. This study develops and establishes a rainfall forecasting platform supported by the GNSS-assisted weather research and forecasting (WRF) model, quantitatively assessing the effect of GNSS precipitable water vapor (PWV) on the accuracy of WRF model forecasts for light rain (LR), moderate rain (MR), heavy rain (HR), and torrential rain (TR). Three schemes are designed and tested using data from seven ground meteorological stations in Xi’an City, China, in 2021. The results show that assimilating GNSS PWV significantly improves the forecast accuracy of the WRF model for different rainfall levels, with the root mean square error (RMSE) improvement rates of 8%, 15%, 19%, and 25% for LR, MR, HR, and TR, respectively. Additionally, the RMSE of rainfall forecasts demonstrates a decreasing trend with increasing magnitudes of assimilated PWV, particularly effective in the range of [50, 55) mm where the lowest RMSE is 3.58 mm. Moreover, GNSS-assisted numerical weather model shows improvements in statistical forecasting indexes such as probability of detection (POD), false alarm rate (FAR), threat score (TS), and equitable threat score (ETS) across all rainfall intensities, with notable improvements in the forecasts of HR and TR. These results confirm the high precision, visualization capabilities, and robustness of the developed rainfall forecasting platform. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Characteristics of Extreme Climate Events over China)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area and station distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flow chart of GNSS-assisted WRF model rainfall forecast platform experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Comparison of RS PWV and GNSS PWV long time series in Shaanxi Province in 2021; (<b>b</b>) RS PWV and GNSS PWV scatter density map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Hourly RMSE of rainfall forecast results for Schemes 2 and 3, compared to WRF no-data-assimilation scheme (Scheme 1), at 1 h to 24 h after data assimilation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of 12 h accumulated rainfall forecast results for (<b>a</b>) scheme 1, (<b>b</b>) scheme 2, (<b>c</b>) scheme 3 on 00 to 12 UTC 18 August 2021, as well as (<b>d</b>) the observed data from meteorological stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of (<b>a</b>) RMSE and (<b>b</b>) bias statistical results of rainfall forecasts with different schemes at seven meteorological stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of the forecast accuracy of (<b>a</b>) LR, (<b>b</b>) MR, (<b>c</b>) HR and (<b>d</b>) TR rainfall levels in different schemes (Taylor statistical chart).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison of (<b>a</b>) POD, (<b>b</b>) FAR, (<b>c</b>) TS, and (<b>d</b>) ETS for different rainfall levels of three schemes in 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>RMSE improvement rate of different rainfall levels in Schemes 2 and 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>RMSE comparison of GNSS PWV magnitude with WRF model for rainfall in different schemes of forecast results.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 11534 KiB  
Article
Investigating Different Interpolation Methods for High-Accuracy VTEC Analysis in Ionospheric Research
by Serkan Doğanalp and İrem Köz
Atmosphere 2024, 15(8), 986; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15080986 - 17 Aug 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1006
Abstract
The dynamic structure of the ionosphere and its changes play an important role in comprehending the natural cycle by linking earth sciences and space sciences. Ionosphere research includes a variety of fields like meteorology, radio wave reflection from the atmosphere, atmospheric anomaly detection, [...] Read more.
The dynamic structure of the ionosphere and its changes play an important role in comprehending the natural cycle by linking earth sciences and space sciences. Ionosphere research includes a variety of fields like meteorology, radio wave reflection from the atmosphere, atmospheric anomaly detection, the impact on GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems) signals, the exploration of earthquake precursors, and the formation of the northern lights. To gain further insight into this layer and to monitor variations in the total electron content (TEC), ionospheric maps are created using a variety of data sources, including satellite sensors, GNSS data, and ionosonde data. In these maps, data deficiencies are addressed by using interpolation methods. The objective of this study was to obtain high-accuracy VTEC (Vertical Total Electron Content) information to analyze TEC anomalies as precursors to earthquakes. We propose an innovative approach: employing alternative mathematical surfaces for VTEC calculations, leading to enhanced change analytical interpretation for anomaly detections. Within the scope of the application, the second-degree polynomial method, kriging (point and block model), the radial basis multiquadric, and the thin plate spline (TPS) methods were implemented as interpolation methods. During a 49-day period, the TEC values were computed at three different IGS stations, generating 1176 hourly grids for each interpolation model. As reference data, the ionospheric maps produced by the CODE (Center for Orbit Determination in Europe) Analysis Center were used. This study’s findings showed that, based on statistical values, the TPS model offered more accurate results than other methods. Additionally, it has been observed that the peak values in TEC calculations based on polynomial surfaces are eliminated in TPSs. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Coupling between Plasmasphere and Upper Atmosphere)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Demonstration of IPPs [<a href="#B13-atmosphere-15-00986" class="html-bibr">13</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison between CODE IONEX file with polynomial, KrigingP, KrigingB, MQ, TPS for WHIT station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison between CODE IONEX file with polynomial, KrigingP, KrigingB, MQ, TPS for DRAO station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison between CODE IONEX file with polynomial, KrigingP, KrigingB, MQ, TPS for MKEA station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The differences between TEC values of interpolation methods and CODEIONEX reference data for WHIT station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The differences between TEC values of interpolation methods and CODEIONEX reference data for DRAO station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The differences between TEC values of interpolation methods and CODEIONEX reference data for MKEA station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Anomaly graphs of WHIT stations using polynomial interpolation (<b>top</b>) and thin plate spline interpolation (<b>bottom</b>) methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Anomaly graphs of DRAO stations using polynomial interpolation (<b>top</b>) and thin plate spline interpolation (<b>bottom</b>) methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Anomaly graphs of MKEA stations using polynomial interpolation (<b>top</b>) and thin plate spline interpolation (<b>bottom</b>) methods.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop