Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/30744
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFragkos, Konstantinos-
dc.contributor.authorAntonescu, Bogdan-
dc.contributor.authorGiles, M. David-
dc.contributor.authorEne, Dragos-
dc.contributor.authorBoldeanu, Mihai-
dc.contributor.authorEfstathiou, A. Georgios-
dc.contributor.authorBelegante, Livio-
dc.contributor.authorNicolae, Doina N.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-06T09:44:21Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-06T09:44:21Z-
dc.date.issued2019-03-29-
dc.identifier.citationAtmospheric Measurement Techniques, 2019, vol. 12, iss. 3, pp. 1979 - 1997en_US
dc.identifier.issn18671381-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/30744-
dc.description.abstractIn this study, we discuss the differences in the total precipitable water (TPW), retrieved from a Cimel sun photometer operating at a continental site in southeast Europe, between version 3 (V3) and version 2 (V2) of the AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) algorithms. In addition, we evaluate the performance of the two algorithms comparing their product with the TPW obtained from a collocated microwave radiometer and nearby radiosondes during the period 2007-2017. The TPW from all three instruments was highly correlated, showing the same annual cycle, with lower values during winter and higher values during summer. The sun photometer and the microwave radiometer depict the same daily cycle, with some discrepancies during early morning and late afternoon due to the effect of solar zenith angle on the measurements of the photometer. The TPW from V3 of the AERONET algorithm has small differences compared with V2, mostly related to the use of the new laboratory-based temperature coefficients used in V3. The microwave radiometer measurements are in good agreement with those obtained by the radiosonde, especially during night-time when the differences between the two instruments are almost negligible. The comparison of the sun photometer data with high-quality independent measurements from radiosondes and the radiometer shows that the absolute differences between V3 and the other two datasets are slightly higher compared with V2. However, V3 has a lower dependence from the TPW and the internal sensor temperature, indicating a better performance of the retrieving algorithm. The calculated one-sigma uncertainty for V3 as estimated, from the comparison with the radiosondes, is about 10 %, which is in accordance with previous studies for the estimation of uncertainty for V2. This uncertainty is further reduced to about 6 % when AERONET V3 is compared with the collocated microwave radiometer. To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth analysis of the V3 TPW, and although the findings presented here are for a specific site, we believe that they are representative of other mid-latitude continental stations.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAtmospheric Measurement Techniquesen_US
dc.rights© Author(s)en_US
dc.subjectSouthern Europeen_US
dc.subjectAERONETen_US
dc.subjectair temperatureen_US
dc.subjectalgorithmen_US
dc.subjectassessment methoden_US
dc.subjectlaboratory methoden_US
dc.subjectmeasurement methoden_US
dc.subjectmicrowave radiometeren_US
dc.subjectphotometeren_US
dc.subjectprecipitable wateren_US
dc.subjectradiosondeen_US
dc.subjectseasonal variationen_US
dc.subjectsensoren_US
dc.subjectzenith angleen_US
dc.titleAssessment of the total precipitable water from a sun photometer, microwave radiometer and radiosondes at a continental site in southeastern Europeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationNational Institute of RandD for Optoelectronics INOE 2000en_US
dc.collaborationScience Systems and Applications Inc. (SSAI)en_US
dc.collaborationNASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)en_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Exeteren_US
dc.subject.categoryNATURAL SCIENCESen_US
dc.subject.categoryENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGYen_US
dc.subject.categoryCivil Engineeringen_US
dc.journalsSubscriptionen_US
dc.countryRomaniaen_US
dc.countryUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.countryUnited Statesen_US
dc.subject.fieldNatural Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldEngineering and Technologyen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5194/amt-12-1979-2019en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85064741255en
dc.identifier.urlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85064741255en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#en
dc.relation.issue3en_US
dc.relation.volume12en_US
cut.common.academicyear2019-2020en_US
dc.identifier.spage1979en_US
dc.identifier.epage1997en_US
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
crisitem.journal.journalissn1867-8548-
crisitem.journal.publisherCopernicus-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-3009-2407-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-5266-0930-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations 20

14
checked on Mar 14, 2024

Page view(s) 20

104
Last Week
2
Last month
4
checked on Nov 23, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in KTISIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.