Comparison of COSMIC and COSMIC-2 Radio Occultation Refractivity and Bending Angle Uncertainties in August 2006 and 2021

Abstract

We compare the random error statistics (uncertainties) of COSMIC (Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Climate, C1) and COSMIC-2 (C2) radio occultation (RO) bending angles and refractivities for the months of August 2006 and 2021 over the tropics and subtropics using the three-cornered hat method. The uncertainty profiles are similar for the two RO missions in the troposphere. However, a higher percentage of C2 profiles reach close to the surface in the moisture-rich tropics, an advantage of the higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in C2. C2 uses signals from both GPS (Global Positioning System) and GLONASS Global Navigation System Satellites (GNSS). The GPS occultations show smaller uncertainties in the stratosphere and lower mesosphere (30–60 km) than the GLONASS occultations, a result of more accurate GPS clocks. Therefore, C2 (GPS) uncertainties are smaller than C1 uncertainties between 30–60 km while the C2 (GLONASS) uncertainties are larger than those of C1. The uncertainty profiles vary with latitude at all levels. We find that horizontal gradients in temperature and water vapor, and therefore refractivity, are the major cause of uncertainties in the tropopause region and troposphere through the violation of the assumption of spherical symmetry in the retrieval of bending angles and refractivity.

Phase Matching Method for Inversion of Venus Radio Occultation Signals

“…This represents an ∼80% improvement in the vertical resolution of Venus atmospheric profiles derived from radio occultation measurements at X‐band. With PM for Venus RO measurements in X‐band we can achieve similar vertical resolutions on Venus than those currently obtained with GNSS‐RO constellations in L‐band, such as the Formosa Satellite‐7/Constellation Observing System for Meteorology Ionosphere and Climate (FORMOSAT‐7/COSMIC‐2) (Anthes et al., 2022; Schreiner et al., 2020) on Earth.…”

Detection of Superrefraction at the Top of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer from COSMIC-2 Radio Occultations

“…Comparison of RO to radiosondes in the ABL is challenging due to horizontal and vertical representation differences (Sjoberg et al 2021;Rieckh et al 2021, and references therein). First, radiosondes represent local profiles so that dN/dz , 2157 km 21 does not necessarily indicate SR on the larger horizontal scales represented by the RO observations.…”

Improving the Wet Refractivity Estimation Using the Extremely Learning Machine (ELM) Technique

“…RO provides valuable meteorological parameter profiles, such as temperature, pressure, and water vapor pressure, with high accuracy, global coverage, and vertical resolution [20]. In fact, the US-Taiwan mission Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC 1/2) [38] provides about 2500 RO events per day and plays a key role in studying the atmosphere [39]. With the advance of space science, more LEO satellites with onboard GNSS receivers have recently been launched, thereby providing a dense dataset for the observation of changes in atmospheric parameters.…”