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

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (95)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = ZTD

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
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 454
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 ">
24 pages, 30202 KiB  
Article
Mountain Landslide Monitoring Using a DS-InSAR Method Incorporating a Spatio-Temporal Atmospheric Phase Screen Correction Model
by Shipeng Guo, Xiaoqing Zuo, Jihong Zhang, Xu Yang, Cheng Huang and Xuefu Yue
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(22), 4228; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224228 - 13 Nov 2024
Viewed by 544
Abstract
The detection of potential rural mountain landslide displacements using time-series interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar has been challenged by both atmospheric phase screens and decoherence noise. In this study, we propose the use of a combined distributed scatterer (DS) and the Prophet_ZTD-NEF model to [...] Read more.
The detection of potential rural mountain landslide displacements using time-series interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar has been challenged by both atmospheric phase screens and decoherence noise. In this study, we propose the use of a combined distributed scatterer (DS) and the Prophet_ZTD-NEF model to rapidly map the landslide surface displacements in Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, China. We conducted tests on 28 full-resolution SENTINEL-1A images to validate the effectiveness of our methods. The conclusions are as follows: (1) Under the same sample conditions, confidence interval estimation demonstrated higher performance in identifying SHPs compared to generalized likelihood ratio test. The density of DS points was approximately eight times and five times higher than persistent scatterer interferometry and small baseline subset methods, respectively. (2) The proposed Prophet_ZTD-NEF model considers the spatial and temporal variability properties of tropospheric delays, and the root mean square error of measured values was approximately 1.19 cm instead of 1.58 cm (PZTD-NEF). (3) The proposed Prophet_ZTD-NEF method reduced the mean standard deviation of the corrected interferograms from 1.88 to 1.62 cm and improved the accuracy of the deformation velocity solution by approximately 8.27% compared to Global Position System (GPS) measurements. Finally, we summarized the driving factors contributing to landslide instability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section AI Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Proposed TS-InSAR processing flowchart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Performance evaluation of different time-series models for fitting <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>Z</mi> <mi>T</mi> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>r</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>: (<b>a</b>) Prophet_ZTD-NEF and PZTD-NEF model fit <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>Z</mi> <mi>T</mi> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>r</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, (<b>b</b>) and (<b>d</b>) represent the accuracy of 100-day and 800-day random prediction using Prophet_ZTD-NEF model, respectively. (<b>c</b>) and (<b>e</b>) represent the accuracy of 100-day and 800-day random prediction using PZTD-NEF model, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Geological background: (<b>a</b>) the geographical location of the study area and the image coverage range of the SENTINEL-1A data stack. The green box represents SAR images range. (<b>b</b>) Overview of the Riwagong landslide. The background shows contour lines (100 m intervals) plotted using 1 arc-second SRTM DEM. (<b>c</b>) Precipitable water vapor (PWV) at Grid Point (99°E, 28°N) from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 obtained using ERA5 Meteorological reanalysis data. The thick red line corresponds to the fit using the Fourier periodic function. Black dots indicate surface PWV.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The different interferometric combinations of SENTINLEL-1A datasets for: (<b>a</b>) PSI, (<b>b</b>) SBAS, and (<b>c</b>) DSI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Test of SHPs identification with different number of SAR stacks. First row: GLR test, second row: FaSHPs test. The blue dots indicate the reference pixel and green dots indicate the homogeneous pixels.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of optimized performance of interferogram formed on 10 May 2022 and 28 April 2022, with a time interval of 12 days and a spatial baseline of 65 m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Performance assessment of atmospheric delays under different seasonal conditions simulated by three GAMs-based methods. The first line is the estimated atmospheric delay for 10 January 2022 at UTC = 23:00: (<b>a</b>) GACOS, (<b>b</b>) PZTD-NEF, (<b>c</b>) Prophet_ZTD-NEF. The second line is the estimated atmospheric delay for 21 July 2022 at UTC = 23:00, (<b>d</b>) GACOS, (<b>e</b>) PZTD-NEF, (<b>f</b>) Prophet_ZTD-NEF.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Statistical assessment before and after the APS corrections of the 169 small baseline interferograms, generated by data from 10 January 2022 to 24 December 2022 counted the mean phase STD for every ten interferograms.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Two cases of phase and elevation analysis of interferogram with plotted scatter density distributions. The red line indicates the linear relationship between the fitted phase and elevation. The first interferogram formed on 10 May 2022 and 21 July 2022 and the second interferogram formed on 11 March 2022 and 27 June 2022. (<b>a</b>) is the first original interferogram and (<b>b</b>–<b>d</b>) are the first interferogram corrected by the GACOS, PZTD-NEF and Prophet_ZTD-NEF, respectively. (<b>i</b>) is the second original interferogram and (<b>j</b>–<b>l</b>) are the second interferogram corrected by the GACOS, PZTD-NEF and Prophet_ZTD-NEF, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Statistics on the variation of phase STD with <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mfenced open="|" close="|" separators="|"> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">k</mi> </mrow> </mfenced> </mrow> </semantics></math> in all interferograms corrected by three methods: (<b>a</b>) GACOS, (<b>b</b>) PZTD-NEF, and (<b>c</b>) Prophet_ZTD-NEF. The green dashed line indicates the linear relationship between the STD reduction after correction (%) and Linear relation between phase and elevation [k].</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>LOS deformation velocity derived using three different TS-InSAR methods: (<b>a</b>) PSI, (<b>b</b>) SBAS, and (<b>c</b>) DSI. Background images are SRTM DEM with topographic shadows and contours.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Correlations between deformation velocity measured by PSI, SBAS, and DSI: (<b>a</b>) cross-comparison between PSI-measured and DSI-measured deformation velocity, (<b>b</b>) cross-comparison between SBAS-measured and DSI-measured deformation velocity, (<b>c</b>) cross-comparison between PSI-measured and SBAS-measured deformation velocity. The green line indicates the linear relationship between the different methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Time-series cumulative displacements measured by four GPS monitoring stations and DSI. The deformation is projected in the vertical direction. The red crosses and blue circles represent DSI and GPS, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13 Cont.
<p>Time-series cumulative displacements measured by four GPS monitoring stations and DSI. The deformation is projected in the vertical direction. The red crosses and blue circles represent DSI and GPS, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Deformation velocity before and after atmospheric delay correction: (<b>a</b>) original method, (<b>b</b>) GACOS, (<b>c</b>) PZTD-NEF, (<b>d</b>) Prophet_ZTD-NEF.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>LOS deformation velocity of the Riwagong landslide on SENTINEL-1A measured with DSI: (<b>a</b>) dashed lines A–B and C–D indicate the profile lines, (<b>b</b>) and (<b>c</b>) represent the deformation velocity profiles of A–B and C–D, respectively. The grey area indicates filled terrain along profile lines. The blue line indicates deformation velocity along profile lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Time-series deformation measured with DSI. All results are calibrated to the first acquisition on 10 January 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Correlation of deformation time-series with rainfall. (<b>a</b>) Position of P1 and P2. (<b>b</b>) and (<b>c</b>) denote the displacement time-series of P1 and P2, respectively. The blue line indicates the linear fitted line of deformation time series. (<b>d</b>) PWV response corresponding to deformation time-series.</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 992
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, 7742 KiB  
Article
Assessment of BDS-3 PPP-B2b Service and Its Applications for the Determination of Precipitable Water Vapour
by Xiaoming Wang, Yufei Chen, Jinglei Zhang, Cong Qiu, Kai Zhou, Haobo Li and Qiuying Huang
Atmosphere 2024, 15(9), 1048; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15091048 - 29 Aug 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 573
Abstract
The precise point positioning (PPP) service via the B2b signal (PPP-B2b) on the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) provides high-accuracy orbit and clock data for global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs), enabling real-time atmospheric data acquisition without internet access. In this study, we assessed [...] Read more.
The precise point positioning (PPP) service via the B2b signal (PPP-B2b) on the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) provides high-accuracy orbit and clock data for global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs), enabling real-time atmospheric data acquisition without internet access. In this study, we assessed the quality of orbit, clock, and differential code bias (DCB) products from the PPP-B2b service, comparing them to post-processed products from various analysis centres. The zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) and precipitable water vapour (PWV) were computed at 32 stations using the PPP technique with PPP-B2b corrections. These results were compared with post-processed ZTD with final orbit/clock products and ZTD/PWV values derived from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA5) and radiosonde data. For stations between 30° N and 48° N, the mean root mean square error (RMSE) of ZTD for the PPP-B2b solution was approximately 15 mm compared to ZTD from the International GNSS Service (IGS). However, accuracy declined at stations between 30° N and 38° S, with a mean RMSE of about 25 mm, performing worse than ZTD estimates using Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES) products. The mean RMSEs of PWV derived from PPP-B2b were 3.7 mm and 4.4 mm when compared to PWV from 11 co-located radiosonde stations and ERA5 reanalysis, respectively, and underperformed relative to CNES solutions. Seasonal variability in GNSS-derived PWV was also noted. This reduction in accuracy limits the global applicability of PPP-B2b. Despite these shortcomings, satellite-based PPP services like PPP-B2b remain viable alternatives for real-time positioning and atmospheric applications without requiring internet connectivity. 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>Coverage areas of three BDS GEO satellites. The red, yellow, and purple stars represent subsatellite points of the three GEO satellites located at 80° E, 110.5° E, and 140° E, respectively, and the lines represent their coverage at cut-off angles of (<b>a</b>) 3°, (<b>b</b>) 5°, (<b>c</b>) 7°, and (<b>d</b>) 15°.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distribution of the 32 GNSS stations; 11 stations with co-located radiosondes are marked with red triangles, while the location of BJ01 is marked with a green pentagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Daily variation in <span class="html-italic">SISRE</span><sub><span class="html-italic">clk</span>+<span class="html-italic">orb</span></sub> [STD] for (<b>a</b>) GPS and (<b>b</b>) BDS-3 from DOY 069 to 311 in 2022. The results show that the daily <span class="html-italic">SISRE</span><sub><span class="html-italic">clk</span>+<span class="html-italic">orb</span></sub> remains less than 0.1 m for GPS and less than 0.05 m for BDS-3 most of the time.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>ZTD time series derived with different methods (<b>a</b>) and the differences between ZTDs derived with PPP-B2b and GBM (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>ZTD error distributions for PPP-B2b solutions. The errors were calculated using the GBM solution as a reference. The results show that the errors are mostly within −30 to 30 mm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>RMSE (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and bias (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) of the ZTD derived with CNES and PPP-B2b using the ZTD provided by IGS as a reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>RMSE (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and bias (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) of the ZTD derived with CNES and PPP-B2b using the ZTD calculated with GBM satellite/orbit products as a reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>RMSE (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and bias (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) of the ZTD derived with IGS, GBM, CNES, and PPP-B2b, using the ZTD calculated from ERA5 as a reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>RMSE (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and bias (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) of the PWV derived with IGS, GBM, CNES, and PPP-B2b using the PWV from ERA5 as a reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>PWV variations and the monthly RMSEs of differences between GNSS-derived PWV and ERA5-derived PWV.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Diurnal anomaly variations in the PWV time series obtained from GNSS and ERA5 in March 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>RMSE (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and bias (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) of the ZTD derived with IGS, GBM, CNES, and PPP-B2b using the ZTD from radiosonde as a reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>This RMSE (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and bias (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) of the PWV derived with IGS, GBM, CNES, and PPP-B2b using the PWV from radiosonde as a reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>PWV variations and the monthly RMSs of the differences between GNSS-derived PWV and radiosonde-derived PWV at 11 stations (<b>a</b>–<b>k</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Frame arrangement structure.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 2586 KiB  
Article
GNSS Real-Time ZTD/PWV Retrieval Based on PPP with Broadcast Ephemerides
by Zongqiu Xu, Shuhao Liu, Yantian Xu, Longjiang Tang, Nannan Yang and Gen Zhang
Atmosphere 2024, 15(9), 1030; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15091030 - 25 Aug 2024
Viewed by 752
Abstract
GNSS precise point positioning (PPP) plays an important role in retrieving atmospheric water vapor values and performing numerical weather prediction. However, traditional PPP relies on real-time orbits and clocks, which require continuous internet or satellite communication. Improved broadcast ephemerides of GNSSs offer new [...] Read more.
GNSS precise point positioning (PPP) plays an important role in retrieving atmospheric water vapor values and performing numerical weather prediction. However, traditional PPP relies on real-time orbits and clocks, which require continuous internet or satellite communication. Improved broadcast ephemerides of GNSSs offer new opportunities for PPP with broadcast ephemerides (BE-PPP) instead of using precise ephemeride products. Therefore, we investigated the feasibility of utilizing BE-PPP for retrieving zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) and precipitable water vapor (PWV) data. We processed the GPS/Galileo observations from 80 IGS stations during a 30-day experiment to retrieve ZTD values using both real-time PPP (RT-PPP) and BE-PPP solutions. Then, we processed observations from 20 EUREF Permanent GNSS Network (EPN) stations to retrieve PWV data. The IGS final tropospheric products were used to validate the ZTD, and radiosonde (RDS) and ERA5 data were used to validate the PWV. The results show that the real-time ZTD from BE-PPP agrees well with that from RT-PPP: the standard deviation (STD) of the ZTD is 1.07 cm when using BE-PPP and 0.6 cm when using RT-PPP. Furthermore, the STD of the PWV is 1.69 mm when using BE-PPP, and 0.96 mm when using RT-PPP, compared to the ERA5-PWV. Compared to the RDS-PWV, the STD is 3.09 mm when using BE-PPP and 1.39 mm when using RT-PPP. In conclusion, the real-time ZTD/PWV products obtained using the BE-PPP solution are consistent with those of RT-PPP and meet the requirements of NWP, so this method can be used as an effective complement to RT-PPP to expand its application potential. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Techniques, Instruments, and Modeling)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of selected IGS stations (red dots) around the world, EPN stations (blue triangles), and RDS stations (black pentagons) in Europe.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The flowchart of ZTD/PWV data retrieval based on BE-PPP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>RT-ZTD, BE-ZTD, and IGS-ZTD at the DYNG station on DOY (day of year) 356, 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Distribution of ZTD differences between RT-ZTD and BE-ZTD from 8 stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean bias (<b>a</b>) and STD (<b>b</b>) of BE-ZTD and RT-ZTD (DOY 356) from 80 IGS stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The boxplot of mean bias and STD for RT-ZTD and BE-ZTD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The time series of PWV derived from BE-PPP, RT-PPP, and ERA5 at station SAS2 during DOY 335-364 of 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Mean value (<b>a</b>) and STD (<b>b</b>) of the PWV differences for BE-PPP and RT-PPP with respect to ERA5 at 20 EPN stations during DOY 335–364 of 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The time series of PWV derived from BE-PPP, RT-PPP, and RDS at station SAS2 during DOY 335–364 of 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Mean value (<b>a</b>) and STD (<b>b</b>) of the PWV differences for BE-PPP and RT-PPP with respect to RDS at 20 EPN stations during DOY 335–364 of 2022.</p>
Full article ">
12 pages, 7758 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of the Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) Derived from VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP Products Based on the CMONOC Data
by Haoran Zhang, Liang Chen, Fei Yang, Jingge Ma, Junya Zhang, Wenyu Sun and Shiqi Xu
Atmosphere 2024, 15(7), 766; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15070766 - 27 Jun 2024
Viewed by 797
Abstract
Prior tropospheric information, especially zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD), is particularly important in GNSS data processing. The two types of ZTD models, those that require and do not require meteorological parameters, are the most commonly used models, whether the non-difference or double-difference mode is [...] Read more.
Prior tropospheric information, especially zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD), is particularly important in GNSS data processing. The two types of ZTD models, those that require and do not require meteorological parameters, are the most commonly used models, whether the non-difference or double-difference mode is applied. To improve the accuracy of prior tropospheric information, the Vienna Mapping Functions (VMFs) data server provides a gridded set of global tropospheric products based on the ray-tracing technique using Numerical Weather Models (NWMs). Note that two types of gridded tropospheric products are provided: the VMF3_OP for the post-processing applications and the VMF3_FC for real-time applications. To explore the accuracy and adaptability of these two grid products, a comprehensive analysis and discussion were conducted in this study using the ZTD data from 255 stations of the Crustal Movement Observation Network of China (CMONOC) as references. The numerical results indicate that both VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP exhibit high accuracy, with RMSE/Bias values of 17.53/2.25 mm and 14.62/2.67 mm, respectively. Both products displayed a temporal trend, with larger RMSE values occurring in summer and smaller values in winter, along with a spatial trend of higher values in the southeast of China and lower values in the northwest of China. Additionally, VMF3_OP demonstrated superior performance to VMF3_FC, with smaller RMSE values for each month and each hour. For the RMSE difference between these two products, 108 stations had a difference of more than 3 mm, and the number of stations with a difference exceeding 1 mm reached 217. Moreover, the difference was more significant in the southeast than in the northwest. This study contributes to the understanding of the differences between the two precision products, aiding in the selection of suitable ZTD products based on specific requirements. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GNSS Meteorology: Algorithm, Modelling, Assessment and Application)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographic distribution of the 255 CMONOC stations (red dots indicate CMONOC stations).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Workflow of this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Scatter plots of the VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP ZTD products with reference values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Residual frequency distribution histograms of the two ZTD products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Variation in RMSE and Bias for VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP with changing reference ZTD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>RMSE time series for VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Monthly RMSE Boxplots for VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP; (<b>b</b>) hourly RMSE Boxplots for VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP. Q3, Q2, and Q1 represent the upper quartile, median, and lower quartile, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The RMSE values of the two products at different hours and months.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Distribution of RMSE for VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP; (<b>b</b>) distribution of the RMSE differences between VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Number of sites with different RMSE for VMF3_FC and VMF3_OP.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 4067 KiB  
Article
Enhancing Atmospheric Monitoring Capabilities: A Comparison of Low- and High-Cost GNSS Networks for Tropospheric Estimations
by Paolo Dabove and Milad Bagheri
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(12), 2223; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16122223 - 19 Jun 2024
Viewed by 899
Abstract
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals experience delays when passing through the atmosphere due to the presence of free electrons in the ionosphere and air density in the non-ionized part of the atmosphere, known as the troposphere. The Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique [...] Read more.
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals experience delays when passing through the atmosphere due to the presence of free electrons in the ionosphere and air density in the non-ionized part of the atmosphere, known as the troposphere. The Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique demonstrates highly accurate positioning along with Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) estimation. ZTD estimation is valuable for various applications including climate modelling and determining atmospheric water vapor. Current GNSS network resolutions are not completely sufficient for the scale of a few kilometres that regional climate and weather models are increasingly adopting. The Centipede-RTK network is a low-cost option for increasing the spatial resolution of tropospheric monitoring. This study is motivated by the question of whether low-cost GNSS networks can provide a viable alternative without compromising data quality or precision. This study compares the performance of the low-cost Centipede-RTK network in calculating the Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) to that of the existing EUREF Permanent Network (EPN), using two alternative software packages, RTKLIB demo5 version and CSRS-PPP version 3, to ensure robustness and software independence in the findings. This investigation indicated that the ZTD estimations from both networks are almost identical when processed by the CSRS-PPP software, with the highest mean difference being less than 3.5 cm, confirming that networks such as Centipede-RTK could be a reliable option for dense precise atmospheric monitoring. Furthermore, this study revealed that the Centipede-RTK network, when processed using CSRS-PPP, provides ZTD estimations that are very similar and consistent with the EUREF ZTD product values. These findings suggest that low-cost GNSS networks like Centipede-RTK are viable for enhancing network density, thus improving the spatial resolution of tropospheric monitoring and potentially enriching climate modelling and weather prediction capabilities, paving the way for broader application and research in GNSS meteorology. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue BDS/GNSS for Earth Observation: Part II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>CentipedeRTK GNSS network map (<a href="https://centipede.fr/index.php/view/map/?repository=cent&amp;project=centipede" target="_blank">https://centipede.fr/index.php/view/map/?repository=cent&amp;project=centipede</a>, accessed on 15 June 2024).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>EUREF GNSS network map (<a href="https://www.epncb.oma.be/_networkdata/stationmaps.php" target="_blank">https://www.epncb.oma.be/_networkdata/stationmaps.php</a>, accessed on 15 May 2024).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Chosen stations from 2 distinct networks (Study area).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>ZTD time series for BRMG vs BIO for weeks of the year (WOY) 8 to 12.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>ZTD time series for BRMF vs BEFF for weeks of the year (WOY) 8 to 12.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparative ZTD estimates variability across BRMG and BIO stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparative ZTD estimate variability across BRMG and BIO stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparative ZTD estimate variability across BRMF and BEFF stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparative ZTD estimate variability across GRAS and SOPH stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparative ZTD estimate variability across VFCH and RDHB7 stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparative ZTD estimate variability across BRST and IUEM stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>RMSE values of ZTD estimates for BRMG and BIO stations in respect to the EUREF ZTD product for weeks of the year (WOY) 8 to 12.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>RMSE values of ZTD estimates for BRMF and BEFF stations in respect to the EUREF ZTD product for weeks of the year (WOY) 8 to 12.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>RMSE values of ZTD estimates for GRAS and SOPH stations in respect to the EUREF ZTD product for weeks of the year (WOY) 8 to 12.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>RMSE values of ZTD estimates for VFCH and RDHB7 stations in respect to the EUREF ZTD product for weeks of the year (WOY) 8 to 12.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>RMSE values of ZTD estimates for BRST and IUEM stations in respect to the EUREF ZTD product for weeks of the year (WOY) 8 to 12.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 18584 KiB  
Article
A New Grid Zenith Tropospheric Delay Model Considering Time-Varying Vertical Adjustment and Diurnal Variation over China
by Jihong Zhang, Xiaoqing Zuo, Shipeng Guo, Shaofeng Xie, Xu Yang, Yongning Li and Xuefu Yue
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(11), 2023; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16112023 - 4 Jun 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 818
Abstract
Improving the accuracy of zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) models is an important task. However, the existing ZTD models still have limitations, such as a lack of appropriate vertical adjustment function and being unsuitable for China, which has a complex climate and great undulating [...] Read more.
Improving the accuracy of zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) models is an important task. However, the existing ZTD models still have limitations, such as a lack of appropriate vertical adjustment function and being unsuitable for China, which has a complex climate and great undulating terrain. A new approach that considers the time-varying vertical adjustment and delicate diurnal variations of ZTD was introduced to develop a new grid ZTD model (NGZTD). The NGZTD model employed the Gaussian function and considered the seasonal variations of Gaussian coefficients to express the vertical variations of ZTD. The effectiveness of vertical interpolation for the vertical adjustment model (NGZTD-H) was validated. The root mean squared errors (RMSE) of the NGZTD-H model improved by 58% and 22% compared to the global pressure and temperature 3 (GPT3) model using ERA5 and radiosonde data, respectively. The NGZTD model’s effectiveness for directly estimating the ZTD was validated. The NGZTD model improved by 22% and 31% compared to the GPT3 model using GNSS-derived ZTD and layered ZTD at radiosonde stations, respectively. Seasonal variations in Gaussian coefficients need to be considered. Using constant Gaussian coefficients will generate large errors. The NGZTD model exhibited outstanding advantages in capturing diurnal variations and adapting to undulating terrain. We analyzed and discussed the main error sources of the NGZTD model using validation of spatial interpolation accuracy. This new ZTD model has potential applications in enhancing the reliability of navigation, positioning, and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) measurements and is recommended to promote the development of space geodesy techniques. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The research framework.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distributions of the annual mean value and period amplitudes for Gaussian coefficients <span class="html-italic">b</span> and <span class="html-italic">c</span>. (<b>a</b>) The annual mean value of <span class="html-italic">b</span>. (<b>b</b>) The annual period amplitude of <span class="html-italic">b</span>. (<b>c</b>) The semi-annual period amplitude of <span class="html-italic">b</span>. (<b>d</b>) The annual mean value of <span class="html-italic">c</span>. (<b>e</b>) The annual period amplitude of <span class="html-italic">c</span>. (<b>f</b>) The semi-annual period amplitude of <span class="html-italic">c</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The diurnal variation of the surface ZTD and its spectral analysis results. (<b>a</b>) 50°N, 120°E. (<b>b</b>) 35°N, 115°E.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Distribution of annual mean value and period amplitudes for surface ZTD. (<b>a</b>) The annual mean value. (<b>b</b>) The annual period amplitude. (<b>c</b>) The semi-annual period amplitude. (<b>d</b>) The diurnal period amplitude. (<b>e</b>) The semi-diurnal period amplitude.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Distribution of vertical interpolation accuracy for NGZTD-H model and GPT3 model using ERA5 profile ZTD in 2018. (<b>a</b>) The bias of NGZTD-H. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE of NGZTD-H. (<b>c</b>) The bias of GPT3. (<b>d</b>) The RMSE of GPT3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Distribution of vertical interpolation accuracy for NGZTD-H and GPT3 models in the selected pressure layers and latitude bands using ERA5 profile ZTD in 2018. (<b>a</b>) The bias of pressure layers. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE of pressure layers. (<b>c</b>) The bias of latitude bands. (<b>d</b>) The RMSE of latitude bands.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Distribution of vertical interpolation accuracy for the NGZTD-H and GPT3 models using the ZTD-layered profiles at radiosonde stations in 2018. (<b>a</b>) The bias of NGZTD-H. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE of NGZTD-H. (<b>c</b>) The bias of GPT3. (<b>d</b>) The RMSE of GPT3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Distribution of vertical interpolation accuracy for NGZTD-H model and GPT3 model in different seasons using the ZTD-layered profiles at radiosonde stations in 2018. (<b>a</b>) Hailar. (<b>b</b>) Hangzhou.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Distribution of vertical interpolation accuracy for the NGZTD-H and GPT3 models at different heights using the ZTD-layered profiles at radiosonde stations in 2018. (<b>a</b>) The bias. (<b>b</b>) The RMSEs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Distribution of accuracy for NGZTD and GPT3 models using the GNSS-derived ZTD at GNSS stations in 2018. (<b>a</b>) The bias of NGZTD. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE of NGZTD. (<b>c</b>) The bias of GPT3. (<b>d</b>) The RMSE of GPT3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Distribution of accuracy for NGZTD and GPT3 models in different seasons using GNSS-derived ZTD in 2018. (<b>a</b>) Kuqa. (<b>b</b>) Delingha.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Distribution of accuracy for NGZTD and GPT3 models during five days using GNSS-derived ZTD in 2018. (<b>a</b>) Kuqa. (<b>b</b>) Guilin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Distribution of accuracy for the NGZTD model, the model with constant Gaussian coefficients, and the GPT3 model using the ZTD-layered profiles at radiosonde stations in 2018. (<b>a</b>) The bias of NGZTD. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE of NGZTD. (<b>c</b>) The bias of GPT3. (<b>d</b>) The RMSE of GPT3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The percentage results of the RMSE for the NGZTD and GPT3 models using the ZTD-layered profiles at radiosonde stations in 2018. (<b>a</b>) NGZTD model. (<b>b</b>) GPT3 model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Distribution of spatial interpolation accuracy for NGZTD-H and GPT3 models using the GNSS-derived ZTD at GNSS stations in 2018. (<b>a</b>) The bias of NGZTD-H. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE of NGZTD-H. (<b>c</b>) The bias of GPT3. (<b>d</b>) The RMSE of GPT3.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 12501 KiB  
Article
An Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Tropospheric Delay Correction Method Based on a Global Navigation Satellite System and a Backpropagation Neural Network: More Suitable for Areas with Obvious Terrain Changes
by Liangcai Qiu, Peng Chen, Yibin Yao, Hao Chen, Fucai Tang and Mingzhu Xiong
Sensors 2023, 23(24), 9760; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23249760 - 11 Dec 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1431
Abstract
Atmospheric delay correction remains a major challenge for interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) technology. In this paper, we first reviewed several commonly used methods for tropospheric delay correction in InSAR. Subsequently, considering the large volume and high temporal resolution of global navigation satellite [...] Read more.
Atmospheric delay correction remains a major challenge for interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) technology. In this paper, we first reviewed several commonly used methods for tropospheric delay correction in InSAR. Subsequently, considering the large volume and high temporal resolution of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) station measurement data, we proposed a method for spatial prediction of the InSAR tropospheric delay phase based on the backpropagation (BP) neural network and GNSS zenith total delay (ZTD). Using 42 Sentinel-1 interferograms over the Los Angeles area in 2021 as an example, we validated the accuracy of the BP + GNSS method in spatially predicting ZTD and compared the correction effects of BP + GNSS and five other methods on interferograms using the standard deviation (StaD) and structural similarity (SSIM). The results demonstrated that the BP + GNSS method reduced the root-mean-square error (RMSE) in spatial prediction by approximately 95.50% compared to the conventional interpolation method. After correction using the BP + GNSS method, StaD decreased in 92.86% of interferograms, with an average decrease of 52.03%, indicating significantly better correction effects than other methods. The SSIM of the BP + GNSS method was lower in mountainous and high-altitude areas with obvious terrain changes in the east and north, exhibiting excellent and stable correction performance in different seasons, particularly outperforming the GACOS method in autumn and winter. The BP + GNSS method can be employed to generate InSAR tropospheric delay maps with high temporal and spatial resolution, effectively addressing the challenge of removing InSAR tropospheric delay signals in areas with significant terrain variations. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The locations of seven GNSS stations in the Los Angeles area and the ZTD and ZHD changes in the stations in 2021. The red triangles in (<b>a</b>) are selected GNSS stations, and the blue connecting lines between the stations correspond to the blue profile lines in the lower left subplot, which are oriented in the direction indicated by the dashed arrows in (<b>a</b>). (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) show the temperature change in Los Angeles in 2021 and the ZTD and ZHD fluctuations measured by the seven selected GNSS stations, respectively. The blue-filled background area in (<b>b</b>) is the period of significant ZTD fluctuations, and the green-filled background area in (<b>c</b>) is the period of significant ZHD fluctuations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>GNSS ZTD time series and time of independent data acquisitions in Los Angeles. (<b>a</b>) is the daily ZTD difference (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>Z</mi> <mi>t</mi> <msub> <mrow> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>x</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <mi>Z</mi> <mi>t</mi> <msub> <mrow> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>) for the GNSS station (ACSB) in 2021. (<b>b</b>) is the 24 h time series of each data in the Los Angeles region of the US. The red diamond represents the MERRA2 data with a time resolution of 3 h. The green diamond shows the ERA5 data with a time resolution of 1 h. The red background is filled with time intervals for MODIS data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Study area and the distribution of GNSS stations. The orange border indicates the data boundary of frame 480 of Sentinel-1 orbit 71, which is also the experimental area of this study. The bottom panel shows the STRM 30m resolution DEM data. Red triangle symbols indicate GNSS stations inside and around the study area. The station selection boundary was expanded by 20 km to ensure the accuracy of the data at the boundary of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Small baseline interferogram. The blue diamond indicates the slave images under each date and red diamond indicates the master image selected on 17 July 2021. The green line indicates the small baseline interferograms for each image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The framework of the BP + GNSS method. The upper dashed box is the main process part. The lower dashed box is part of GNSS ZTD spatial prediction by the BP neural network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of interferometric pixel position ZTD interpolation based on GPI, IDW, RBF, and KRI methods for two days, on 18 January 2021 and 10 August 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of BP predicted ZTD and GNSS ZTD. ZTD distribution in the study area on 18 January 2021 (first row) and 10 August 2021 (second row). (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>) are GNSS site ZTD data solved using GAMIT. The gray bottom panel is DEM data. (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>) are ZTD data on spatially predicted interferometric pixel locations using BP Net. (<b>c,f</b>) are correlation analysis of the BP Net forecasted GNSS site ZTD and the original GNSS site ZTD. The blue circle is the ZTD value, the gray straight line is the Y = X reference line, and the red dotted line is the linear fit of the scatter points..</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The StaD of the uncorrected interferometric phases for each season (the leftmost dark blue bar in each group). The mean value of the StaD of the interferograms for each season after correction by various correction methods is shown in the figure. The methods corresponding to bars 2–7 in (<b>a</b>) and 1–6 in (<b>b</b>) are GACOS, MERRA2, ERA5, MODIS, Ph-Elev (linear), and BP + GNSS, respectively. And correspond to the respective legend colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of SSIM indices of the original interferograms unwrapped phases corrected by each method. The first row shows the first 21 interferograms, the second row shows the last 21 interferograms, and each group of 6 bars corresponds to the 6 correction methods in the lower legend. The interferograms with orange backgrounds are best corrected by the Ph-Elev (linear) method. The blue background indicates the dominance of turbulence in the phase delays of this interferogram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Spatial distribution of SSIM before and after interferogram correction. (<b>a</b>) is the spatial distribution of the average SSIM of 42 interferograms before and after correction by each method and (<b>b</b>) is the SSIM spatial distribution of a pair of interferograms (18/05/2021–11/06/2021) with a longer perpendicular baseline.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The StaD of 42 interferograms before and after correction based on CACOS and BP + GNSS method (<b>a</b>) and correction rate of two methods (<b>b</b>). The gray vertical dashed line is the interferogram 15/09/2021–09/10/2021, the green horizontal dashed line represents the correction effect zero point, and the lower gray filled area represents the worse effect after correction; the other two dashed lines are the quadratic polynomial fit to the data to show the trend of the effect of the two methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of BP + GNSS and GACOS correction effects. The first column shows the original interferogram unwrapped phases; the second and third columns show the total phase delays (LOS direction) in the troposphere under the two methods; the last two columns show the corrected interferogram unwrapped phases. Where the arrows indicate the trend of the StaD change (increase/decrease) after correction, and ∆σ is the percentage of StaD change; the red box indicates that the region brings in new deviation after correction, and the black box indicates that the region has no obvious effect after GACOS correction. All subplots share a color band, and the value in the lower left corner of each subplot in parentheses is the mapping interval of the color band value for that subplot.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 2745 KiB  
Article
A Refined Zenith Tropospheric Delay Model Based on a Generalized Regression Neural Network and the GPT3 Model in Europe
by Min Wei, Xuexiang Yu, Fuyang Ke, Xiangxiang He and Keli Xu
Atmosphere 2023, 14(12), 1727; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14121727 - 24 Nov 2023
Viewed by 1188
Abstract
An accurate model of the Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) plays a crucial role in Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) precise positioning, water vapor retrieval, and meteorological research. Current empirical models (such as the GPT3 model) can only reflect the approximate change trend of [...] Read more.
An accurate model of the Zenith Tropospheric Delay (ZTD) plays a crucial role in Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) precise positioning, water vapor retrieval, and meteorological research. Current empirical models (such as the GPT3 model) can only reflect the approximate change trend of ZTD but cannot accurately reflect nonlinear changes such as rapid fluctuations in ZTD. In recent years, the application of machine learning methods in the modeling and prediction of ZTD has gained prominence, yielding commendable results. Utilizing the ZTD products from 53 International GNSS Service (IGS) stations in Europe during the year 2021 as a foundational dataset, a Generalized Regression Neural Network (GRNN) is employed to model IGS ZTD while considering spatiotemporal factors and its association with GPT3 ZTD. This endeavor culminates in the development of a refined GRNN model. To verify the performance of the model, the prediction results are compared with two other ZTD values. One is obtained based on the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis 5 (ERA5) data, and the other is obtained by the GPT3 model. The results show that the bias of the GRNN refined model is almost 0 mm, and the average Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) are 18.33 mm and 14.08 mm, respectively. Compared with ERA5 ZTD and GPT3 ZTD, the RMSE of GRNN ZTD has decreased by 19.5% and 63.4%, respectively, and the MAE of GRNN ZTD has decreased by 24.8% and 67.1%. Compared with the other two models, the GRNN refined model has better performance in reflecting the rapid fluctuations of ZTD. In addition, also discussed is the impact of spatial factors and time factors on modeling. The findings indicate that modeling accuracy within the central region of the modeling area surpasses that at the periphery by approximately 17.8%. The period from June to October is associated with the lowest accuracy, whereas the optimal accuracy is typically observed from January to April. The most substantial differences in accuracy were observed at station OP71 (Paris, France), with the highest accuracy recorded (9.51 mm) in April and the lowest (24.00 mm) in September. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>IGS stations distribution map. The triangle represents the verification stations, and the circle represents the training stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The GRNN model structure for refining the GPT3 ZTD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>RMSE obtained by training GRNN models with different hyperparameters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Histogram of the residuals for the training and validation sets in GRNN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Accuracies at training sites of RMSE, bias, and MAE, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The plot shows the ZTD time series from IGS and three models in six sample stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Residual errors at the six sample sites for the three models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Map showing bias, RMSE, and MAE at 10 validation stations for the three methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>RMSE, bias, and MAE at the 10 verification sites. TS represents training stations, and VS represents verification stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>A heatmap of the monthly MAE for 10 validation stations.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 3243 KiB  
Article
Estimation and Evaluation of Zenith Tropospheric Delay from Single and Multiple GNSS Observations
by Sai Xia, Shuanggen Jin and Xuzhan Jin
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(23), 5457; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15235457 - 22 Nov 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1513
Abstract
Multi-Global Navigation Satellite Systems (multi-GNSS) (including GPS, BDS, Galileo, and GLONASS) provide a significant opportunity for high-quality zenith tropospheric delay estimation and its applications in meteorology. However, the performance of zenith total delay (ZTD) retrieval from single- or multi-GNSS observations is not clear, [...] Read more.
Multi-Global Navigation Satellite Systems (multi-GNSS) (including GPS, BDS, Galileo, and GLONASS) provide a significant opportunity for high-quality zenith tropospheric delay estimation and its applications in meteorology. However, the performance of zenith total delay (ZTD) retrieval from single- or multi-GNSS observations is not clear, particularly from the new, fully operating BDS-3. In this paper, zenith tropospheric delay is estimated using the single-, dual-, triple-, or four-GNSS Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique from 55 Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) stations over one year. The performance of GNSS ZTD estimation is evaluated using the International GNSS Service (IGS) standard tropospheric products, radiosonde, and the fifth-generation European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) reanalysis (ERA5). The results show that the GPS-derived ZTD time series is more consistent and reliable than those derived from BDS-only, Galileo-only, and GLONASS-only solutions. The performance of the single-GNSS ZTD solution can be enhanced with better accuracy and stability by combining multi-GNSS observations. The accuracy of the ZTD from multi-GNSS observations is improved by 13.8%, 43.8%, 27.6%, and 22.9% with respect to IGS products for the single-system solution (GPS, BDS, Galileo, and GLONASS), respectively. The ZTD from multi-GNSS observations presents higher accuracy and a significant improvement with respect to radiosonde and ERA5 data when compared to the single-system solution. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue BDS/GNSS for Earth Observation: Part II)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The distribution of GNSS stations from MGEX networks and radiosonde stations. The black triangle is the GNSS station, and the red circle is the radiosonde station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>ZTD time series of GPS (G), BDS (C), Galileo (E), and GLONASS (R) for the year 2019 (<b>top panel</b>: DGAR; <b>bottom panel</b>: PTGG).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Linear correlation of GPS-derived ZTD to the other system-derived (BDS, Galileo, and GLONASS) ZTD at station DGAR (<b>a</b>−<b>c</b>) and PTGG (<b>d</b>−<b>f</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Distribution of ZTD differences between the GPS-only and the other single-system (BDS, Galileo, and GLONASS) solutions at stations DGAR (<b>a</b>−<b>c</b>) and PTGG (<b>d</b>−<b>f</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Between the GPS-only and the other single-system (BDS, Galileo, and GLONASS) solutions, the top panel shows the RMSs of ZTD differences and the bottom panel shows biases of ZTD differences.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>ZTD differences between four-system combined and single-system (G, C, E, and R) or multi-system combined (GC, GE, GR, GCE, GCR, and GER) solutions (<b>top panel</b>: DGAR; <b>bottom panel</b>: PTGG).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>ZTD derived from single-system and multi-system solutions and IGS final troposphere products during DOY 140–150, 2019 (<b>top panel</b>: DGAR; <b>bottom panel</b>: PTGG).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The ZTD differences of single- and multi-system solutions with respect to IGS products during DOY 140–150, 2019 (<b>top panel</b>: DGAR; <b>bottom panel</b>: PTGG).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>RMS and mean absolute bias for the ZTD differences of single- and multi-system solutions with respect to IGS final products (<b>top panel</b>: RMS; <b>bottom panel</b>: absolute bias).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>ZTD derived from the four-system solution and radiosonde solution during DOY 80−180, 2019 (<b>top panel</b>: POAL; <b>bottom panel</b>: HOB2).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>RMSs of ZTD differences for single- and multi-system solutions with respect to the radiosonde solutions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>ZTD time series from the four-system solution and ERA5 data for a period of 40 days (<b>top panel</b>: RGDG; <b>bottom panel</b>: STJ3).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Geographical distribution of RMS values of ZTD differences for the multi-system solutions with respect to the ERA5 data at GNSS stations. (<b>a</b>) G. (<b>b</b>) GR. (<b>c</b>) GER. (<b>d</b>) GCER.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 8720 KiB  
Technical Note
Fast Observation Operator for Global Navigation Satellite System Tropospheric Gradients
by Florian Zus, Rohith Thundathil, Galina Dick and Jens Wickert
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(21), 5114; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15215114 - 26 Oct 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1412
Abstract
From the raw measurements at a single Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ground-based station, the Zenith Total Delay (ZTD) and the tropospheric gradient can be estimated. In order to assimilate such data into Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models, the observation operator must be [...] Read more.
From the raw measurements at a single Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ground-based station, the Zenith Total Delay (ZTD) and the tropospheric gradient can be estimated. In order to assimilate such data into Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models, the observation operator must be developed. Our previously developed tropospheric gradient operator is based on a linear combination of tropospheric delays and, therefore, is difficult to implement into NWP Data Assimilation (DA) systems. In this technical note, we develop a fast observation operator. This observation operator is based on an integral expression which contains the north–south and east–west horizontal gradients of refractivity. We run a numerical weather model (the horizontal resolution is 10 km) and show that for stations located in central Europe and in the warm season, the root-mean-square deviation between the tropospheric gradients calculated by the fast and original approach is about 0.15 mm. This deviation is regarded acceptable for assimilation since the typical root-mean-square deviation between observed and forward modelled tropospheric gradients is about 0.5 mm. We then implement the developed operator in our experimental DA system and test the proposed approach. In particular, we analyze the impact of the assimilation on the refractivity field. The developed tropospheric gradient operator, together with its tangent linear and adjoint version, is freely available (Fortran code) and ready to be implemented into NWP DA systems. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GNSS in Meteorology and Climatology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>On 27 May 2013, 12 UTC large tropospheric gradients were present in central Europe. The <b>left</b> (<b>middle</b>) panel shows the NWM (GNSS) tropospheric gradient map. The tropospheric gradient maps are combined with radar precipitation data provided by the Deutscher Wetter Dienst (DWD). The radar precipitation data correspond to the instantaneous rain and is measured in mm/h. The color scale is yellow-green-blue-purple-red. The darker tone of a specific color means a higher rainfall intensity. The GNSS Integrated Water Vapor (IWV) map is shown in the <b>right</b> panel. Courtesy of Michael Kačmařík.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Map of tropospheric gradient components valid at 7.6.2021, 12 UTC. The original tropospheric gradient operator was utilized to derive the north and the east gradient component. The <b>left</b> (<b>right</b>) panel shows the <b>east</b> (<b>north</b>) gradient component.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-05114-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a> but the fast tropospheric gradient operator was utilized to derive the north and the east gradient component.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Zoom into the time series of the north and the east gradient components at the station POTS (Potsdam, Germany). The <b>upper</b> panel shows the tropospheric gradient components derived with the original (fast) observation operator in black (red) as a function of the time. The <b>lower</b> panel shows the differences between the tropospheric gradient components as a function of the time.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>We compare GNSS and NWM ZTDs for a two month period (May and June 2013). The 250 stations cover Germany, the Czech Republic and parts of Austria and Poland. The <b>upper</b> panel shows the data availability in percent per station. The <b>middle</b> panel shows the station specific mean deviation. The <b>lower</b> panel shows the station specific standard deviation. The number (yellow background) equals the average value of the respective parameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>We compare GNSS and NWM tropospheric gradient components for a two month period (May and June 2013). The 250 stations cover central Europe. The fast tropospheric gradient operator is utilized for this comparison. The <b>left</b> (<b>right</b>) panel shows the statistic for the <b>east</b> (<b>north</b>) gradient components. The <b>upper</b> panel shows the station specific mean deviation. The <b>lower</b> panel shows the station specific standard deviation. The number (yellow background) equals the average value of the respective parameter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-05114-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a> but the original tropospheric gradient operator is utilized for this comparison.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The root-mean-square error of the refractivity in percent as a function of the pressure. The black line corresponds to the background, the blue line corresponds to the case when ZTDs are assimilated and the red line corresponds to the case where both ZTDs and tropospheric gradients are assimilated. GNSS ZTDs and tropospheric gradients for the single station Potsdam are assimilated four times per day (0, 6, 12, 18 UTC) for a period of four months (May, June, July and August 2021). The original tropospheric gradient operator is utilized in the assimilation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-05114-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> but the fast tropospheric gradient operator is utilized in the assimilation.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 15582 KiB  
Article
Tropospheric Delay Parameter Estimation Strategy in BDS Precise Point Positioning
by Zhimin Liu, Yan Xu, Xing Su, Cuilin Kuang, Bin Wang, Guangxing Wang and Hongyang Ma
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(15), 3880; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15153880 - 4 Aug 2023
Viewed by 1443
Abstract
Tropospheric delay (TD) parameter estimation is a critical issue underlying high-precision data processing for global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs). The most widely used TD parameter estimation methods are the random walk (RW) and piece-wise constant (PWC). The RW method can effectively track rapid [...] Read more.
Tropospheric delay (TD) parameter estimation is a critical issue underlying high-precision data processing for global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs). The most widely used TD parameter estimation methods are the random walk (RW) and piece-wise constant (PWC). The RW method can effectively track rapid variations of tropospheric delay, but it may introduce excessive noise. In contrast, the PWC method introduces less noise, but it is less adaptable to cases of large variations of tropospheric delay. To address the problem of how to choose the optimal TD parameter estimation method, this paper investigates the variation patterns of international GNSS service zenith tropospheric delay (IGS ZTD) products and proposes a combined strategy model for TD parameter estimation. Firstly, this paper avoids the day-boundary jumps problem of IGS ZTD products by grouping based on single-day data. Secondly, this paper introduces discrete point areas (DPAs) to measure the magnitude of the ZTD values and uses comprehensive indicators to reflect the variation of ZTD. Next, based on the Köppen-Geiger climate classification, this study selected five different climate classifications with a total of 20 IGS stations as experimental data. The data assessed span from day of year (DOY) 001 to DOY 365 in 2022. This paper then applied 26 different parameter estimation strategies for static precise point positioning (PPP) data processing, and the parameter estimation strategies that were used include the RW and PWC (with the piece-wise constant ranging from twenty minutes to five hundred minutes at twenty-minute intervals). Finally, ZTD and positioning results were obtained using various parameter estimation methods, and a combined strategy model was established. We selected five different climate classifications of IGS stations as validation data and designed three sets of comparative experiments: RW, PWC120, and the combined strategy model, to verify the effectiveness of the combined strategy model. The experimental results revealed that: RW and the combined strategy model have a comparable ZTD accuracy and both are superior to PWC120. The combined strategy model improves the positioning accuracy in the U direction compared to RW and PWC120. In arid (B) and polar (E) regions with a small variation of TD, the PWC120 strategy displayed a better positioning accuracy than the RW strategy; in equatorial (A) and warm-temperate (C) regions, where there are large variations of TD, the RW strategy exhibited a better positioning accuracy than the PWC120 strategy. The combined strategy model can flexibly select the optimal parameter estimation method according to the comprehensive indicator while ensuring ZTD estimation accuracy; it enhances positioning accuracy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Progress in GNSS Data Processing Technology and Modeling)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Epoch differences of IGS ZTD for the CRO1 station from DOY 001 to DOY 365 in 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The blue curve in (<b>a</b>) represents the IGS ZTD series of the CRO1 station from DOY 001 to DOY 003 in 2022, and the black dashed line indicates the horizontal line of the minimum value in each daily IGS ZTD series; (<b>b</b>) is a zoom in of a certain region of the IGS ZTD, which was developed to show the calculation process of our proposed discrete point area method more clearly; and (<b>c</b>) displays the IGS ZTD discrete point area series that was obtained using the improved discrete point area method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The STD, VDPA, and, range in the CRO1 station (the first three graphs displayed in the figure). The normalized STD, VDPA, range, and comprehensive indicator (bottom figure).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Climate classifications and distribution of stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The IGS ZTD time series for the year 2022 for the equatorial ((<b>A</b>) CRO1, COCO, SGOC, and KOUR), arid ((<b>B</b>) AMC4, TASH, WIND, and ULAB), warm temperate ((<b>C</b>) HOB2, NICO, TIT2, and WUH2), snow ((<b>D</b>) GANP, GCGO, SOD3, and UNB3) and polar ((<b>E</b>) CAS1, FALK, MAC1, and OHI3) zones.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The IGS ZTD discrete point area for the year 2022 for the equatorial ((<b>A</b>) CRO1, COCO, SGOC, and KOUR), arid ((<b>B</b>) AMC4, TASH, WIND, and ULAB), temperate ((<b>C</b>) HOB2, NICO, TIT2, and WUH2), frigid ((<b>D</b>) GANP, GCGO, SOD3, and UNB3) and polar ((<b>E</b>) CAS1, FALK, MAC1, OHI3) zones.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The ZTD estimation results and IGS ZTD for five stations with different climate types using the RW, PWC30, PWC60, PWC120, PWC360, and PWC480 strategies on DOY 001 in 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The ZTD estimation accuracy for five stations with different climate types using the RW, PWC30, PWC60, PWC120, PWC360, and PWC480 strategies on DOY 001 in 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Experiment with available data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Technical roadmap of the combined strategy model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The optionality of parameter estimation strategies within different threshold ranges in the equatorial region (A).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The optionality of parameter estimation strategies within different threshold ranges in the arid region (B).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The optionality of parameter estimation strategies within different threshold ranges in the warm-temperate region (C).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The optionality of parameter estimation strategies within different threshold ranges in the snow region (D).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The optionality of parameter estimation strategies within different threshold ranges in the polar region (E).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>(<b>a</b>) The numerical relationship between the ZTD values estimated using the RW, PWC120, and combined strategy model (denoted as Comb) parameter estimation methods at the MIZU station and the IGS ZTD reference values, with the red diagonal lines representing the fitting lines of the three parameter estimation strategies to the IGS ZTD. (<b>b</b>) ZTD bias distribution statistics for the RW, PWC120, and Comb parameter estimation strategies at the MIZU station, with the red curve representing the standard normal distribution curve.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>The daily IGS ZTD derived the comprehensive indicator for the MIZU station alongside the daily ZTD accuracy of the RW, PWC120, and Comb strategies.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>The STD, VDPA, and range of all test stations for the IGS ZTD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>The PPP (E/N/U) and ZTD accuracy for the RW, PWC120, and Comb strategies for all test stations.</p>
Full article ">
10 pages, 8978 KiB  
Proceeding Paper
Tropospheric and Ionospheric Modeling Using GNSS Time Series in Volcanic Eruptions (La Palma, 2021)
by Paola Barba, Javier Ramírez-Zelaya, Vanessa Jiménez, Belén Rosado, Elena Jaramillo, Mario Moreno and Manuel Berrocoso
Eng. Proc. 2023, 39(1), 9047; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2023039047 - 6 Jul 2023
Viewed by 984
Abstract
The signal coming from the artificial satellites of the GNSS system suffers various effects that considerably decrease the precision in solving the positioning problem. To mathematically model these effects, the atmosphere is divided into two main parts, the troposphere and the ionosphere. The [...] Read more.
The signal coming from the artificial satellites of the GNSS system suffers various effects that considerably decrease the precision in solving the positioning problem. To mathematically model these effects, the atmosphere is divided into two main parts, the troposphere and the ionosphere. The troposphere can only be modelled, while the ionospheric effect can be modeled or eliminated depending on the geodetic sophistication of the receivers used. In this way, information is obtained about both layers of the atmosphere. For tropospheric modeling, the parameters of total zenithal delay (ZTD) or precipitable water vapor (PVW) will be taken, and for the ionosphere the total electron content (TEC) will be taken. In this work, statistical and analytical techniques will be applied with the R software; for example, ARMA, ARIMA models, least squares methods, wavelet functions, Kalman techniques, and CATS analysis. With this, the anomalies that occurred in the values of the ZTD and TEC in the case of the 2021 eruption of the Cumbre Vieja volcano on the island of La Palma. Full article
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 9th International Conference on Time Series and Forecasting)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Earthquakes from 1 September 2021 to 1 June 2022. Image extracted from IGN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Permanent GPS stations of the MAGNET network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>STL decomposition to IZAN (Tenerife) during the period 2010–2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Application of ARMA, Kalman, and ARIMA (from left to right) on the IZAN station in the period 2010–2020. The blue graph represents the one obtained by applying the methods and the red elements are the data of the filtered series.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparative of ZTD and PWV values for station EH01 (El Hierro).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Application of ARMA, Kalman and ARIMA methods on ANTI (Fuerteventura), STEI (Tenerife), and FRON (El Hierro) stations, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Kalman comparative techniques during the years 2018 to 2022. Marking os the eruption period throughout each year.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Kalman comparative techniques during the years 2018 to 2022. Marking os the eruption period throughout each year.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>STL decomposition to MAZO (La Palma) during the period from 2010 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Application of ARIMA, ARMA and Kalman methods on ARGU, GRAF and ALAJ stations, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of the ARIMA model for the MAZO (La Palma), HRIA (Lanzarote), ALDE (Gran Canarias) and ANTI (Lanzarote) stations. Marked eruptive period.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 6029 KiB  
Article
A Novel Method for Monitoring Tropical Cyclones’ Movement Using GNSS Zenith Tropospheric Delay
by Dajun Lian, Qimin He, Li Li, Kefei Zhang, Erjiang Fu, Guangyan Li, Rui Wang, Biqing Gao and Kangming Song
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(13), 3247; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15133247 - 23 Jun 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1658
Abstract
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is an important meteorological factor for predicting extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones, which can be obtained from zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) by using a conversion. A time difference of ZTD arrival (TDOZA) model was proposed to monitor [...] Read more.
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is an important meteorological factor for predicting extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones, which can be obtained from zenith tropospheric delay (ZTD) by using a conversion. A time difference of ZTD arrival (TDOZA) model was proposed to monitor the movement of tropical cyclones, and the fifth-generation reanalysis dataset of the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasting (ERA5)-derived ZTD (ERA5-ZTD) was used to estimate the movement of tropical cyclones based on the model. The global navigation satellite system-derived ZTD and radiosonde data-derived PWV (RS-PWV) were used to test the accuracy of the ERA5-ZTD and analyze the correlation between ZTD and PWV, respectively. The statistics showed that the mean Bias, RMS and STD of the ERA5-ZTD were 6.4 mm, 17.1 mm and 16.5 mm, respectively, and the mean correlation coefficient of the ERA5-ZTD and RS-PWV was 0.951, which indicates that the ZTD can be used to predict weather events instead of PWV. Then, spatiao-temporal characteristics of ZTD during the four tropical cyclone (i.e., Merbok, ROKE, Neast and Hato) periods in 2017 were analyzed, and the result showed that the moving directions of ZTD and the tropical cyclones were consistent. Thus, the ZTD time series over the ERA5 grids around the tropical cyclones’ paths were used to estimate the velocity of the tropical cyclones based on the TDOZA model, when the tropical cyclones are approaching or leaving. Compared with the result from the China Meteorological Administration, the mean absolute and relative deviations of the TDOZA model-derived velocity were 2.55 km/h and 10.0%, respectively. These results suggest that ZTD can be used as a new supplementary meteorological parameter for monitoring tropical cyclone events. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Beidou/GNSS Precise Positioning and Atmospheric Modeling II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram for the monitoring of a typical tropical cyclone’s movement: (<b>a</b>) The edge of the tropical cyclone reaches a site; (<b>b</b>) The center of the tropical cyclone is closest to the site and begins to leave.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Geographical distribution of the GNSS stations (purple squares) and RS stations (yellow circles).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Time series of 1-h IGS-ZTD and ERA5-ZTD over the 10 GNSS stations in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03247-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3 Cont.
<p>Time series of 1-h IGS-ZTD and ERA5-ZTD over the 10 GNSS stations in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03247-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The time series with 12-h ERA5-ZTD and RS-ZTD over the four randomly selected RS stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Linear regression analysis results of the RS-PWV and ERA5-ZTD time series over the RS stations in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03247-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Correlation coefficients of the RS-PWV and ERA5-ZTD time series over the RS stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Spatial distributions of ZTD on the route of four tropical cyclones Merbok (<b>a</b>), ROKE (<b>b</b>), Neast (<b>c</b>) and Hato (<b>d</b>) during the four tropical cyclones’ periods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The paths of Merbok, ROKE, Neast and Hato, and the selected ERA5 grids around the path during the tropical cyclone’s period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The time series with 1-h ZTD over the six ERA5 girds in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03247-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> during the three-day tropical cyclone periods of 10–12 June (<b>a</b>), 21–23 July (<b>b</b>), 27–29 July (<b>c</b>) and 21–23 August (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop