The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intercomparison of remote sounding instruments
Abstract
When intercomparing measurements made by remote sounders, it is necessary to make due allowance for the differing characteristics of the observing systems, particularly their averaging kernels and error covariances. We develop the methods required to do this, applicable to any kind of retrieval method, not only to optimal estimators. We show how profiles and derived quantities such as the total column of a constituent may be properly compared, yielding different averaging kernels. We find that the effect of different averaging kernels can be reduced if the retrieval or the derived quantity of one instrument is simulated using the retrieval of the other. We also show how combinations of measured signals can be found, which can be compared directly. To illustrate these methods, we apply them to two real instruments, calculating the expected amplitudes and variabilities of the diagnostics for a comparison of CO measurements made by a ground‐based Fourier Transform spectrometer (FTIR) and the “measurement of pollution in the troposphere” instrument (MOPITT), which is mounted on the EOS Terra platform. The main conclusions for this case are the following: (1) Direct comparison of retrieved profiles is not satisfactory, because the expected standard deviation of the difference is around half of the expected natural variability of the true atmospheric profiles. (2) Comparison of the MOPITT profile retrieval with a simulation using FTIR is much more useful, though still not ideal, with expected standard deviation of differences of around 20% of the expected natural variability. (3) Direct comparison of total columns gives an expected standard deviation of about 9%, while comparison of MOPITT with a simulation derived from FTIR improved this to 8%. (4) There is only one combination of measured signals that can be usefully compared. The difference is expected to have a standard deviation of about 5.5% of the expected natural variability, which is mostly due to noise.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sha, M. K., Langerock, B., Blavier, J.-F. L., Blumenstock, T., Borsdorff, T., Buschmann, M., Dehn, A., De Mazière, M., Deutscher, N. M., Feist, D. G., et al. (2021) · Atmospheric Measurement Techniques · doi:10.5194/amt-14-6249-2021 · Cited by 200
Worden, J. R., Cusworth, D. H., Qu, Z., Yin, Y., Zhang, Y., Bloom, A. A., Ma, S., Byrne, B. K., Scarpelli, T., Maasakkers, J. D., et al. (2022) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-22-6811-2022 · Cited by 90
Hedelius, J. K., Viatte, C., Wunch, D., Roehl, C. M., Toon, G. C., Chen, J., Jones, T., Wofsy, S. C., Franklin, J. E., Parker, H., et al. (2016) · Atmospheric Measurement Techniques · doi:10.5194/amt-9-3527-2016 · Cited by 73
McMillan, W. W., Warner, J. X., Comer, M. M., Maddy, E., Chu, A., Sparling, L., Eloranta, E., Hoff, R., Sachse, G., Barnet, C., et al. (2008) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2007jd009711 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Rodgers, C. D., & Connor, B. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2003-02-08
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- D3
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980119753
- Cited by
- 826
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intercomparison of remote sounding instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2002jd002299
- The paper
- Rodgers, C. D., & Connor, B. J. (2003). Intercomparison of remote sounding instruments. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002299
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.