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
