Advertisement

Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 607–622 | Cite as

Determination and interpolation of parameters for precise conversion of GNSS wet zenith delay to precipitable water vapor in Turkey

  • Ilke DenizEmail author
  • Gokhan Gurbuz
  • Cetin Mekik
Original Study
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

Studies of estimating precipitable water vapor (PWV) from continuous Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations with high temporal and spatial resolution continuously have become popular in recent years. In this estimation process, the weighted mean temperature (Tm) and the conversion parameter (Q) are the most important parameters to convert tropospheric zenith delay (ZTD) to PWV. In this study, Tm and Q time series are derived by assessing 4103 profile observations of eight Turkish radiosonde stations (RS) for approximately one year. The Tm − Ts linear regression model is developed. In analogy to Tm − Ts model, the Q values are modelled based on different combinations of surface temperature (Ts), station latitude (θ), station height (H) and day of the year (DOY). To test the validity of these models, the GNSS derived PWV (PWVGNSS) values are computed from the GNSS data of just over a year for the Istanbul and Ankara RS-GNSS stations using the most precise Tm and Q models, and later they are compared with the PWVRS values. The mean of the differences obtained for the Ankara and Istanbul stations are found to be 1.4–1.6 mm with a standard deviation of 1.7–1.8 mm, respectively. Moreover, modelling and interpolating meteorological parameters such as temperature, pressure, as well as PWV and ZTD are tested using the spherical harmonic functions (SHF). The results indicate that SHF can be safely and accurately used for modelling and interpolating meteorological parameters and ZTD.

Keywords

GNSS meteorology Precipitable water vapor Weighted mean temperature Q conversion factor Spherical harmonic interpolation Radiosonde 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for the project titled “The Estimation of Atmospheric Water Vapour with GPS” (Project No: 112Y350).

References

  1. Bevis M, Businger S, Herring TA et al (1992) GPS meteorology: remote sensing of atmospheric water vapor using the global positioning system. J Geophys Res: Atmos 97:15787–15801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böhm J, Heinkelmann R, Schuh H (2007) Short note: a global model of pressure and temperature for geodetic applications. J Geodesy 81:679–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenot H, Walpersdorf A, Reverdy M et al (2014) A GPS network for tropospheric tomography in the framework of the Mediterranean hydrometeorological observatory Cévennes-Vivarais (southeastern France). Atmos Meas Tech 7:553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dach R, Hugentobler U, Fridez P, Meindl M (2007) User manual of the bernese GPS software version 5.0. Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, BernGoogle Scholar
  5. Douša J (2004) Evaluation of tropospheric parameters estimated in various routine GPS analysis. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 29:167–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2004.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emardson TR, Derks HJ (2000) On the relation between the wet delay and the integrated precipitable water vapour in the European atmosphere. Meteorol Appl 7:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Igondová M (2009) Analysis of precision and accuracy of precipitable water vapour derived from GPS observations. Contrib Geophys Geodesy 39:121–132Google Scholar
  8. Jade S, Vijayan MSM (2008) GPS-based atmospheric precipitable water vapor estimation using meteorological parameters interpolated from NCEP global reanalysis data. J Geophys Res: Atmos.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008758 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Juni I, Rózsa S (2018) Developing a global model for the conversion of zenith wet tropospheric delays to integrated water vapour. Acta Geod Geophys 53:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liou Y-A, Huang C-Y, Teng Y-T (2000) Precipitable water observed by ground-based GPS receivers and microwave radiometry. Earth Planet Sp 52:445–450.  https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lo J, El-Mowafy A (2011) Interpolation of the GNSS wet troposphere delay. In: Proceedings of the surveying and spatial sciences biennial conference, 21–25 Nov 2011, pp 425–438. New Zealand Institute of Surveyors and the Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute, Wellington, NZGoogle Scholar
  12. Moszynski K (1995) On solving linear algebraic equations with an ill-conditioned matrix. Appl Math 22:499–513Google Scholar
  13. Ning T, Wang J, Elgered G, et al (2015) The uncertainty of the atmospheric integrated water vapour estimated from GNSS observations. Atmos Meas Tech Discuss 8:8817–8857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pacione R, Vespe F (2003) GPS zenith total delay estimation in the Mediterranean area for climatological and meteorological applications. J Atmos Ocean Technol 20:1034–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pacione R, Bock O, Dousa J (2014) GNSS atmospheric water vapour retrieval methods. In: Proceedings of COST action ES1206 - GNSS4SWEC advanced GNSS tropospheric products for monitoring severe weather events and climate workshop, Munich, Germany, 26–28 February 2014Google Scholar
  16. Park C-G, Roh K-M, Cho J (2012) Radiosonde sensors bias in precipitable water vapor from comparisons with global positioning system measurements. J Astron Space Sci 29:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perler D, Geiger A, Hurter F (2011) 4D GPS water vapor tomography: new parameterized approaches. J Geodesy 85:539–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rózsa S (2014a) Uncertainty considerations for the comparison of water vapour derived from radiosondes and GNSS. In: Rizos C, Willis P (eds) Earth on the edge: science for a sustainable planet. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 139. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rózsa S (2014b) Modelling tropospheric delays using the global surface meteorological parameter model GPT2. Periodica Polytech Civ Eng 58:301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rózsa S, Kenyeres A, Weidinger T, Gyöngyösi AZ (2014) Near real time estimation of integrated water vapour from GNSS observations in hungary. In: Rizos C, Willis P (eds) Earth on the edge: science for a sustainable planet. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 139. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sapucci LF (2014) Evaluation of modeling water-vapor-weighted mean tropospheric temperature for GNSS-integrated water vapor estimates in Brazil. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 53:715–730.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-048.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sato K, Realini E, Tsuda T et al (2013) A high-resolution, precipitable water vapor monitoring system using a dense network of GNSS receivers. J Disaster Res 8:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Troller M, Geiger A, Brockmann E, Kahle H-G (2006) Determination of the spatial and temporal variation of tropospheric water vapour using CGPS networks. Geophys J Int 167:509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang J, Zhang L, Dai A (2005) Global estimates of water-vapor-weighted mean temperature of the atmosphere for GPS applications. J Geophys Res Atmos 110:D21101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang H, Wei M, Li G et al (2013) Analysis of precipitable water vapor from GPS measurements in Chengdu region: distribution and evolution characteristics in autumn. Adv Space Res 52:656–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringBulent Ecevit UniversityZonguldakTurkey

Personalised recommendations