Dear Renish,
yes, these are good points by Stuart. The metmm setup is not optimized
for the oxygen bands. My understanding is that Alex, here in Cc, is
currently testing the different oxygen setups. Alex, perhaps you could
also comment?
For the water vapor, note that Alex also made tweaks to some line
parameters according to recent literature (at the time, as described in
the README file). The reason to stick with that setup would be because
it has been compared to observations. I can’t say about the newer
HITRAN and CKDMT320. It may be equally good or even better. But not
necessarily. That’s a bit the problem with these recommendations
it’s a bit of a moving target.
Best wishes,
Stefan
On 12 Nov 2020, at 12:15, Fox, Stuart wrote:
Hi Renish/Stefan,
Looking at the controlfile Stefan recommends I have a couple of
concerns/questions. Firstly, it looks to me that the Oxygen absorption
set-up is using line parameters from the catalog file (which I'm
assuming is HITRAN-2012?), but does not have any line mixing. I would
expect this to lead to problems in the 50-60GHz oxygen band and have
an impact out into the 89GHz window region. My understanding was that
it was simplest to use the "O2-TRE05" complete absorption model for
oxygen which does include the line mixing effects?
The water vapour set-up is probably fine, although my preference is to
use the values from the AER catalog which has a couple of tweaks to
better fit some atmospheric observations. I think the recent releases
are almost the same as HITRAN-2016, but maybe not HITRAN-2012? Recent
versions of ARTS also have the CKDMT320 continuum (courtesy of Emma
Turner) and I've found that seems to give a reasonable match to much
of our airborne data.
Regards,
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: arts_users.mi-boun...@lists.uni-hamburg.de
<arts_users.mi-boun...@lists.uni-hamburg.de> On Behalf Of
arts_users.mi-requ...@lists.uni-hamburg.de
Sent: 12 November 2020 11:00
To: arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
Subject: arts_users.mi Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1
This email was received from an external source. Always check sender
details, links & attachments.
Send arts_users.mi mailing list submissions to
arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/mailman/listinfo/arts_users.mi
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arts_users.mi-requ...@lists.uni-hamburg.de
You can reach the person managing the list at
arts_users.mi-ow...@lists.uni-hamburg.de
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of arts_users.mi digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Choosing the right Continua models/spectroscopy data
(Thomas,Renish)
2. Re: Choosing the right Continua models/spectroscopy data
(Stefan Buehler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:13:56 +0000
From: "Thomas,Renish" <renish.tho...@colostate.edu>
To: "arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de"
<arts_users...@mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
Subject: [arts-users] Choosing the right Continua models/spectroscopy
data
Message-ID:
<mwhpr07mb29105db7745658c3237f2f2bf1...@mwhpr07mb2910.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Everyone,
I had a question about selecting the best Continua models/spectroscopy
lines for the most accurate simulation results.
My main species of interest is "H2O" and I am simulating an airborne
sensor. The difference in brightness temperatures when I use the
"H2O-PWR98" vs. "H2O" lines from the Perrin database along with the
PWR98 model is greater than about 10 degrees around the 183 GHz water
vapor lines.
So, my question is, what is the best strategy on choosing the continua
models and spectroscopic data around the absorption lines and in the
window region (Away from absorption lines).
My region of interest is 50-300 GHz.
Also, what are the recommended spectroscopic lines and for what
applications are they most suited for. Example : Perrins, HITRAN.
Cheers,
Renish
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/pipermail/arts_users.mi/attachments/20201112/83ef4936/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:58:47 +0100
From: "Stefan Buehler" <stefan.bueh...@uni-hamburg.de>
To: "Thomas,Renish" <renish.tho...@colostate.edu>
Cc: "arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de"
<arts_users...@mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
Subject: Re: [arts-users] Choosing the right Continua
models/spectroscopy data
Message-ID: <62af22b7-302e-4e9f-a067-1f586d683...@uni-hamburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Dear Renish,
for microwave water vapor instruments I would recommend the settings
from controlfiles/instruments/metmm (in the ARTS distro), which were
developed by Alex Bobryshev and used for this paper:
Bobryshev, O., S. A. Buehler, V. O. John, M. Brath, and H. Brogniez
(2018), Is there really a closure gap between 183.31 GHz satellite
passive microwave and in-situ radiosonde water vapor measurements?,
IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 56(5), 2904?2910,
doi:10.1109/TGRS.2017.2786548.
Best wishes,
Stefan
On 12 Nov 2020, at 5:13, Thomas,Renish wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I had a question about selecting the best Continua
models/spectroscopy
lines for the most accurate simulation results.
My main species of interest is "H2O" and I am simulating an airborne
sensor. The difference in brightness temperatures when I use the
"H2O-PWR98" vs. "H2O" lines from the Perrin database along with the
PWR98 model is greater than about 10 degrees around the 183 GHz water
vapor lines.
So, my question is, what is the best strategy on choosing the
continua
models and spectroscopic data around the absorption lines and in the
window region (Away from absorption lines).
My region of interest is 50-300 GHz.
Also, what are the recommended spectroscopic lines and for what
applications are they most suited for. Example : Perrins, HITRAN.
Cheers,
Renish
_______________________________________________
arts_users.mi mailing list
arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/mailman/listinfo/arts_users.mi
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
arts_users.mi mailing list
arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/mailman/listinfo/arts_users.mi
End of arts_users.mi Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1
********************************************
_______________________________________________
arts_users.mi mailing list
arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/mailman/listinfo/arts_users.mi
_______________________________________________
arts_users.mi mailing list
arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de
https://mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/mailman/listinfo/arts_users.mi
