Version 1
: Received: 16 April 2024 / Approved: 17 April 2024 / Online: 17 April 2024 (11:54:41 CEST)
How to cite:
Ahmed, I.F.; Alheyf, M.; Yamany, M.S. PlanetiQ Radio Occultation: Preliminary Comparative Analysis of Neutral Profiles vs. COSMIC and NWP Models. Preprints2024, 2024041137. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.1137.v1
Ahmed, I.F.; Alheyf, M.; Yamany, M.S. PlanetiQ Radio Occultation: Preliminary Comparative Analysis of Neutral Profiles vs. COSMIC and NWP Models. Preprints 2024, 2024041137. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.1137.v1
Ahmed, I.F.; Alheyf, M.; Yamany, M.S. PlanetiQ Radio Occultation: Preliminary Comparative Analysis of Neutral Profiles vs. COSMIC and NWP Models. Preprints2024, 2024041137. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.1137.v1
APA Style
Ahmed, I.F., Alheyf, M., & Yamany, M.S. (2024). PlanetiQ Radio Occultation: Preliminary Comparative Analysis of Neutral Profiles vs. COSMIC and NWP Models. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.1137.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Ahmed, I.F., Mohammed Alheyf and Mohamed S. Yamany. 2024 "PlanetiQ Radio Occultation: Preliminary Comparative Analysis of Neutral Profiles vs. COSMIC and NWP Models" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.1137.v1
Abstract
Radio Occultation (RO) is pivotal for profiling the neutral and ionized atmosphere, with the PlanetiQ mission, via its GNOMES satellites, striving to establish an advanced atmospheric observing system. However, an assessment of the spatiotemporal distributions of PlanetiQ observations and comparisons with reliable datasets are lacking. This study addresses this gap by examining the temporal and spatial distribution of RO observations from PlanetiQ during its initial 198 operational days in 2023, alongside comparisons with COSMIC and Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models. Data from GN02, GN03, and GN04 satellites, yielding 1099, 1313, and 1843 RO events per day respectively, were analyzed. The satellite constellation's observations demonstrate a generally well-distributed pattern, albeit minor deficiencies in equatorial and polar regions. Single-profile comparisons with COSMIC data reveal strong correlations for pressure, temperature, Water Vapor Pressure (WVP), and refractivity profiles, with temperature exhibiting larger variations (RMSE = 1.24°C). Statistical analyses confirm statistically insignificant differences between PlanetiQ and COSMIC profiles at the same spatio-temporal coordinates. Comparisons with NWP models show slight differences with GFS, with overall RMSE values of 0.23 mb (WVP), 0.6 mb (pressure), 1.3 (refractivity), and 1.5°C (temperature). However, assessments against GFS/ECMWF models indicate overall compatibility, with insignificant differences between PlanetiQ profiles and models observations.
Keywords
GNSS Radio Occultation; PlanetiQ; COSMIC; GFS; ECMWF
Subject
Environmental and Earth Sciences, Space and Planetary Science
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
