Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 344

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of Atmospheric Infrared Sounder temperature and water vapor retrievals with matched radiosonde measurements and forecasts

Divakarla, Murty G., Barnet, Chris D., Goldberg, Mitchell D., McMillin, Larry M., Maddy, Eric, Wolf, Walter, Zhou, Lihang, Liu, Xingpin·2006·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

An evaluation of the temperature and moisture profile retrievals from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) data is performed using more than 2 years of collocated data sets. The Aqua‐AIRS retrievals, global radiosonde (RAOB) measurements, forecast data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction Global Forecasting System (NCEP_GFS), the European Center for Medium Range Forecast (ECMWF), and the operational retrievals from the NOAA 16 satellite Advanced TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder (ATOVS) instrument are used in this validation. Using RAOB observations as the reference, bias and RMS differences are computed for “sea,” “land,” and “all” categories for the AIRS retrievals and other collocated data sets. The results of the intercomparison reveal that temperature and water vapor retrievals from the AIRS are in very good agreement with the RAOBs. The RMS difference for clear‐only cases over “sea” and “all” categories is close to the expected goal accuracies, namely, 1°K in 1 km layers for the temperature and better than 15% in 2‐km layers for the water vapor in the troposphere. The overall RMS difference for the cloud‐cleared cases is also close to the expected product goal accuracy except for a slight degradation at the surface. When AIRS and ATOVS retrievals are compared with the RAOBs, the AIRS temperature retrievals show an improvement over ATOVS of at least 0.5°K for all the accepted cases. Both the ECMWF and the NCEP_GFS forecasts match the RAOB temperatures within 1°K and water vapor within 14%. With respect to biases, the AIRS final retrieval shows a larger bias with the RAOBs relative to ATOVS, NCEP_GFS, and ECMWF. The bias is highly influenced by a larger bias contribution from “land” samples and shows a month‐to‐month and annual variation that correlates with the CO 2 variations. This coupling suggests a need to include CO 2 and possibly other trace gas climatologies in the AIRS initial guess to partially mitigate the effects in the final physical retrieval.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2005jd006116

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 344

Metadata

Authors
Divakarla, M. G., Barnet, C. D., Goldberg, M. D., McMillin, L. M., Maddy, E., Wolf, W., Zhou, L., & Liu, X.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2006-04-06
Volume
111
Issue
D9
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055892739
Cited by
344
References
8
FWCI
17.21
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: Validation of Atmospheric Infrared Sounder temperature and water vapor retrievals with matched radiosonde measurements and forecasts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2005jd006116
The paper
Divakarla, M. G., Barnet, C. D., Goldberg, M. D., McMillin, L. M., Maddy, E., Wolf, W., Zhou, L., & Liu, X. (2006). Validation of Atmospheric Infrared Sounder temperature and water vapor retrievals with matched radiosonde measurements and forecasts. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005jd006116

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.