the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Observing atmospheric rivers using multi-GNSS airborne radio occultation: system description and data evaluation
Abstract. Atmospheric Rivers (ARs) are narrow filaments of high moisture flux responsible for most of the horizontal transport of water vapor from the tropics to mid-latitudes. Improving forecasts of ARs through numerical weather prediction (NWP) is important for increasing the resilience of the western US to flooding and droughts. These NWP forecasts rely on the improved understanding of AR physics and dynamics from satellite, radar, aircraft, and in situ observations, and now airborne radio occultation (ARO) can contribute to those goals. The ARO technique is based on precise measurements of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) signal delays collected from a receiver onboard an aircraft from setting or rising GNSS satellites. ARO inherits the advantages of high vertical resolution and all-weather capability of spaceborne RO observations and has the additional advantage of continuous and dense sampling of the targeted storm area. This work presents a comprehensive ARO dataset recovered from four years of AR Reconnaissance (AR Recon) missions over the eastern Pacific. The final dataset is comprised of ∼ 1700 ARO profiles from 39 flights (∼ 260 flight hours) from multiple GNSS constellations. Profiles extend from aircraft cruising altitude (13–14 km) down into the lower troposphere, with more than 50 % of the profiles extending below 4 km, below which the receiver loses or cannot initiate lock. The horizontal drift of the tangent points that comprise a given ARO profile greatly extends the area sampled from just underneath the aircraft to both sides of the flight track (up to ∼ 400 km). The estimated refractivity accuracy with respect to dropsondes is ∼ 1.2 %, in the upper troposphere where the sample points are closely collocated. For the lower troposphere, the agreement is within ∼ 7 % which is the level of consistency expected given the nature of atmospheric variations over the 300–700 km separation between the lowest point and the dropsonde.
- Preprint
(11974 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Reviewer Comment on amt-2024-119', Sean Healy, 04 Nov 2024
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of RC1 and its content was therefore removed on 7 November 2024.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-119-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-119', Sean Healy, 06 Nov 2024
General comment
This is a useful paper on airborne radio occultation measurements, and I recommend publication after minor corrections/clarifications outlined in the specific comments below.
Specific comments
Page 2, line 36: The data gap identified by Zheng (2021). Does this account for the information provided by COSMIC-2 since 2020, or the fact that many NWP centers can assimilate microwave radiances in an all-sky framework?
Page 4, line 105. Why is a 10 % improvement in TC intensity forecast with COSMIC-2 described as “modest”? This leads to a more general point. How does the accuracy of the SRO and ARO observations compare in the troposphere? ARO may have better sampling, but my understanding is the accuracy is poorer than SRO. Is that correct – please quantify/discuss?
Equation 1: I do not think Rueger (2002) recommends 77.6 for the first term. Please clarify.
Page 6, line 146. In SRO, the Doppler shift to bending angle step is performed assuming the refractive index at the receiver is unity. Is this assumption made for ARO? Please clarify the text. In addition, are you performing a geometrical optics retrieval rather than a wave optics retrieval to bending angle?
Top of page 7: The point about assimilating refractivity and handling the ambiguity there is correct, but it should be added that most NWP centers assimilate SRO as bending angle profiles.
Page 7, line 178: “in situ measurements used in the ARO retrieval”. As above, just in the Abel transform or in the Doppler to bending angle step as well?
Page 10, line 250: Why is the ionospheric correction handled at the phase level? For SRO, this is known to be less accurate than bending angle, but does the use of partial bending angles mitigate this potential error?
Page 11, line 293, L1 only: Healy et al (2002) suggest a single frequency is sufficient for partial bending angles. Is that not correct in practice?
Figure 5c,d (page 16, 359): using the vertical/horizontal intervals over which 50 % of the excess occurs seems a reasonable approximate to resolution. However, why is this producing poorer resolution near the surface? Suggestion: why not use 50 % of the ray bending? For example, would Fig 5c,d look the same if you used 50 % of the partial bending angle?
Figures 13a and 14 would be easier to interpret if the typical SRO refractivity statistics could be added to the plots, or at least discussed in the text. The ROM SAF monitoring may be useful for this. See
https://rom-saf.eumetsat.int/monitoring/index.php
Page 32, lines 634-635. “Both of these techniques …”. It reads as if you are saying a local refractivity accounts for horizontal variations along the path. Please revise.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-119-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comments on the amt-2024-119', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Nov 2024
The paper is well written describing all the aspects of Airborne Radio Occultation including retrieval. Validation of the Airborne RO data having very good match with dropsonde and comparison with reanalysis demonstrates the high quality observations using ARO. It is worth publishing.
Following are a few specific comments which may be considered and clarified prior to the publication:
Line 107: I agree that dense ARO observations will increase the impact, however it will be good to know the errors of ARO wrt SRO for the lower atmosphere which may increase the overall error in the forecast.
Line 193: Although refractivity anomaly for ARO and ERA analysis looks to be similar in general however there are difference for low and high values..
Since most of the discussions in this pater are on airborne radio occupation than on atmospheric rivers, move appropriate title can be Airborne radio occultation System description und its advantages to observe atmospheric river.
Fig 14 (d): Is there any particular reason for showing mean and SD of Galileo by dashed lines.
Line 609: Statement “ highest accuracy between 3 km and 14 km” may need modification as errors till 4 km are 4% and as per Table 4, ARO data is at maximum height of 12.5 km.
In comparison to Satellite RO observations, Airborne is showing higher errors (Table 4). An explanation on the same as well as possible methods to reduce this will be beneficial for the forecasters.
Line 250: should be ”ionospheric effect” instead of” ionospheric effort”
Live 261: it will be good to know how much error smoothening introduces?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-119-RC2 - RC3: 'Comment on amt-2024-119', Anonymous Referee #3, 24 Nov 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
398 | 104 | 24 | 526 | 12 | 20 |
- HTML: 398
- PDF: 104
- XML: 24
- Total: 526
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1