the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Empirical Modeling of Tropospheric Delays and Uncertainty
Abstract. Accurate modeling of troposphere delay is important for high-precision data analysis of space geodetic techniques, such as the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). The empirical troposphere delay models provide zenith delays with an accuracy of 3 to 4 cm globally and do not rely on external meteorological input. They are thus important for providing a priori delays and serving as constraint information to improve the convergence of real-time GNSS positioning, and in the latter case, the proper weighting is critical. Currently, the empirical troposphere delay models only provide the delay value, but not the uncertainty of the delay. For the first time, we present a global empirical troposphere delay model, which provides both the zenith delay and the corresponding uncertainty, based on 10 years of tropospheric delays from the Numerical Weather Model (NWM). The model is based on a global grid, and at each grid point a set of parameters that describes the delay and uncertainty by the constant, annual, and semi-annual terms. The empirically modeled zenith delay has an agreement of 36 and 38 mm compared to three years delay values from NWM and four years estimates from GNSS stations, which is comparable to the previous models such as GPT3. The modeled ZTD uncertainty shows a correlation of 96 % with the accuracy of the empirical ZTD model over 380 GNSS stations over the four years. For GNSS stations where the uncertainty annual amplitude is larger than 20 mm, the temporal correlation between the uncertainty and smoothed accuracy reaches 85 %. Using GPS pseudo-kinematic PPP solutions of ~200 globally distributed stations over four months in 2020, we demonstrate that using the proper constraints can improve the convergence speed. The uncertainty modeling is based on a similar dataset as the GPT series, and thus it is also applicable for these empirical models.
- Preprint
(3255 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Oct 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1803', Fabio Crameri, 20 Aug 2024
reply
Please consider using different colour combinations, as red-green combinations are indistinguishable for many of your readers with colour-vision deficiencies, which excludes them from understanding most figures in the current pre-print.
As you would probably agree, figures should also be readable by everyone with colour vision deficiency (CVD; this affects ~5% of the global population). To achieve this basic standard of science figures, CVD-unfit colour combinations like red and green colour palettes have to be avoided and be replaced by accessible colour palettes. Amongst others, the Scientific colour maps (www.fabiocrameri.ch/colourmaps) are a freely available, citable, and validated resource of various colour palettes of all different types ensuring accurate and accessible data representation. Because the Scientific colour maps address known issues, they have been made compatible with most software frequently used to create graphics. Details and step-by-step instructions are given in the included user guide. The background of this tool and others, as well as the importance of addressing the broader issue, are described in Crameri et al. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7.
Finally, to check your figures for accessibility issues, there is open tools available, such as Coblis (https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/).
Thanks for your work!Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1803-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1803', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2024
reply
The study was carried out properly and was well presented in terms of organisation and use of language. I have some comments and suggestion in the upload pdf-file that should be clarified in revisions. The manuscript should be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1803', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Sep 2024
reply
Dear authors, I want to thank you for your interesting work and mostly well prepared manuscript. Still, I have some comments which should be addressed before the publication.
Major comments
1, In the manuscript, you provide a broad set of figures showing various detailed results. In the text, you mention only a few statistical parameters. I would like to see more of these statistics in your manuscript. Not necessarily in every (sub-)section, but e.g. in:
a, section 2.1: provide not only mean RMS and range of RMS, but also other information. E.g.: is there any bias of the fitting residuals? What is their mean standard deviation?
b, section 3: only some information about average RMS is given. Please, include more statistics for ZTD residuals (at least mean = bias, standard deviation). How much the statistics differ between individual years?
c, section 4: if possible, add more summarizing information about the differences between modelled ZTD and GNSS ZTD (I see only average bias and RMS values). E.g. results for individual years, range of bias/rms values at individual stations, etc.
d, section 5: you provide figure 14 and corresponding text which just generaly summarizes which solution is improved/not improved. Please, add also specific numeric information about the size of improvement. E.g. a table showing how much the solutions with 1/2 sigma uncertainties improved compared to the solution with no added uncertainties (a percentual improvement/worsening).2, Although your Conclusion and Outlook section contains some elements of a scientific discussion, you should elaborate this topic more. Please, discuss more the quality and sufficiency of your methods and experiments. I also wonder if it would be possible to include the diurnal cycle into your model as it can be rather strong for ZWD in summer periods.
Minor comments
L31: correction: replace ".. of water vapor in spatial and temporal" with "... of water vapor in space and time". Or add a noun after the "spatial and temporal" words.
L35: in the first sentence you are writing about various techniques for tropospheric zenith delay estimation. Some of them are techniques or instruments, other models. However, you start your second sentence with words "Despite the relatively high accuracy of these models, ...". What do you mean with the term "models" in this sentence? Please, rephrase the text to clarify. Later, you write that "these methods require accurate meteorological information". E.g. radiosonde does not require any meteorological information as it is an instrument to measure them. Please, revise the paragraph (e.g. strictly separate measurement techniques/instruments and models). The current text can be confusing for reader.
L54: typo NECP -> NCEP
L105: I would suggest to provide two figures instead of one. In the first one, you would show the height of VMF3 grid points. In the second one, you would show position of GNSS stations. At the moment, the figure is a rather chaotic and e.g. in the central Europe, it is not possible to get any information about grid point heights/position of GNSS stations as everything is shown in white.
L224: you write that in periods with peak of formal errors, the ZTD residuals could be extremely large. You write that reason of this situation is in "abundant water vapor and more likely happening extreme weather conditions". Please, where do you have any proof or support for this statement? Please, explain why do you think so.
L230: figure 7: please, increase size of the figures as they are hardly readable
L239: you are writing about 2017 to 2021 period, but do you mean just 2019 to 2021 period which you used for prediction evaluation? Similarly, in Figure 8 caption, you write about 2018-2021 period. Please, check and correct.
L330: although the figure caption decribes yellow and green dots, I can see only orange and green dots. Please, correct.
L335: from which year you used GNSS data? I do not see this information.
L333: here you write about GNSS positioning, on L335 you mention usage of GPS observations. Please, clarify which GNSS systems were used in your data processing. If you used GPS-only solution, please explain this setup and discuss whether usage of multi-gnss would lead to different results (as nowadays a multi-gnss or at least gps+glonass processing is a rather standard, at least in scientific studies).Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1803-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
114 | 38 | 79 | 231 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 114
- PDF: 38
- XML: 79
- Total: 231
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1