Re: [arts-users] arts_users.mi Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1

2020-11-19 Thread Thomas,Renish 
Thank You all for the suggestions.

Yeah, I tried the recommendations and see that the brightness temperatures 
change a lot between the models especially near the water vapor absorption 
lines.

Cheers,
Renish



From: arts_users.mi-boun...@lists.uni-hamburg.de 
 on behalf of Stefan Buehler 

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Fox, Stuart 
Cc: arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de ; 
Oleksandr Bobryshev 
Subject: Re: [arts-users] arts_users.mi Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1

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
>  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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.rrz.uni-hamburg.de%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Farts_users.midata=04%7C01%7Crenish.thomas%40colostate.edu%7C550d6642fad64142a13808d88a4bb20c%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C1%7C637411405014479246%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=X4a%2FGMB5rcly0hPokw3%2BmFDo6KJOo%2B5VKeWyZ39NYgc%3Dreserved=0
> 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 +
> From: "Thomas,Renish" 
> To: "arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de"
>
> Subject: [arts-users] Choosing the right Continua models/spectroscopy
>data
> Message-ID:
>
> 
>
> 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 questi

Re: [arts-users] arts_users.mi Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1

2020-11-16 Thread Stefan Buehler 

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 
 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 +
From: "Thomas,Renish" 
To: "arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de"

Subject: [arts-users] Choosing the right Continua models/spectroscopy
data
Message-ID:



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: 



--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:58:47 +0100
From: "Stefan Buehler" 
To: "Thomas,Renish" 
Cc: "arts_users.mi@lists.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

Re: [arts-users] arts_users.mi Digest, Vol 53, Issue 1

2020-11-12 Thread Fox, Stuart 
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 
 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 +
From: "Thomas,Renish" 
To: "arts_users.mi@lists.uni-hamburg.de"

Subject: [arts-users] Choosing the right Continua models/spectroscopy
data
Message-ID:



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: 


--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:58:47 +0100
From: "Stefan Buehler" 
To: "Thomas,Renish" 
Cc: "arts_users.mi@lists.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 
>