Comparisons of Performance Using Data Assimilation and Data Fusion Approaches in Acquiring Precipitable Water Vapor: A Case Study of a Western United States of America Area

Zhaohui Xiong,Jizhang Sang,Xiaogong Sun,Bao Zhang,Junyu Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102943
IF: 3.53
2020-10-21
Water
Abstract:There are two main types of methods available to obtain precipitable water vapor (PWV) with high accuracy. One is to assimilate observations into a numerical weather prediction (NWP) model, for example, the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, to improve the accuracy of meteorological parameters, and then obtain the PWV with improved accuracy. The other is the direct fusion of multi-source PWV products. Regarding the two approaches, we conduct a comparison experiment on the West Coast of the United States of America with the data from May 2018, in which the WRF data assimilation (DA) system is used to assimilate the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) PWV, while the method by Zhang et al. to fuse the GNSS PWV, ERA5 PWV and MODIS (moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometer) PWV. As a result, four groups of PWV products are generated: the assimilated GNSS PWV, the unassimilated GNSS PWV, PWV from the fusion of the GNSS PWV and ECWMF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) ERA5 (ECWMF Reanalysis 5) PWV, and PWV from the fusion of the GNSS PWV, ERA5 PWV and MODIS PWV. Experiments show that the data assimilation based on the WRF model (WRFDA) and adopted fusion method can generate PWV products with similar accuracy (1.47 mm vs. 1.52 mm). Assimilating the GNSS PWV into the WRF model slightly improves the accuracy of the inverted PWV by 0.18 mm. The fusion of the MODIS PWV, GNSS PWV and ERA5 PWV results in a higher accuracy than the fusion of GNSS PWV and ERA5 PWV by a margin of 0.35 mm. In addition, the inland canyon topography appears to have an influence on the inversion accuracy of both the methods.
environmental sciences,water resources
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper primarily explores two methods for obtaining high-precision Precipitable Water Vapor (PWV) and compares them through a case study. These two methods are Data Assimilation (DA) and Data Fusion. Specifically: 1. **Data Assimilation Method**: By assimilating PWV data observed by the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) into weather forecasting models (such as the Weather Research and Forecasting, WRF model), the accuracy of meteorological parameters can be improved, thereby obtaining higher precision PWV. 2. **Data Fusion Method**: Directly fusing PWV data from different sources, such as GNSS PWV, reanalysis data ERA5 PWV from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), and PWV data from the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), to generate PWV products with higher spatial and temporal resolution. The paper selected the west coast of the United States as the study area and used data from May 2018 for the experiment. By comparing the experimental results, the paper found that: - The data assimilation method based on the WRF model can slightly improve the accuracy of GNSS PWV (by about 0.18 mm). - The PWV product obtained by fusing MODIS PWV, GNSS PWV, and ERA5 PWV is more accurate than the product obtained by fusing only GNSS PWV and ERA5 PWV (with a difference of about 0.35 mm). - The inland canyon terrain has a certain impact on the inversion accuracy of the two methods. In summary, this paper aims to compare the performance of data assimilation and data fusion methods in obtaining high-precision PWV and to explore the applicability of these methods in specific geographical environments.