Assimilation of Hyperspectral Infrared Atmospheric Sounder Data of FengYun-3E Satellite and Assessment of Its Impact on Analyses and Forecasts
<p>The distribution of weighting function of 56 selected CO<sub>2</sub> channels of FY-3E HIRAS for assimilation.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Temperature weighting function shapes of channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup>, and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>a</b>) with colored line. The corresponding pressure layer of the weighting function peak for each channel (<b>b</b>).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The time variations of observation numbers for the channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup>, 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup>, and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> that were assimilated in CMA-GFS over time from 03:00 1 March to 21:00 30 March 2023.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The probability density functions (PDFs) of the OMB for Channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>a</b>), 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>b</b>), 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>c</b>), 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>d</b>), 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>e</b>), and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>f</b>) before (black) and after (red) bias correction.</p> "> Figure 4 Cont.
<p>The probability density functions (PDFs) of the OMB for Channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>a</b>), 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>b</b>), 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>c</b>), 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>d</b>), 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>e</b>), and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>f</b>) before (black) and after (red) bias correction.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>The temporal variation in the mean OMB for Channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>a</b>), 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>b</b>), 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>c</b>), 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>d</b>), 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>e</b>), and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>f</b>) before (dash line) and after (solid line) bias correction during the time period from 03:00 1 March to 21:00 30 March 2023.</p> "> Figure 5 Cont.
<p>The temporal variation in the mean OMB for Channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>a</b>), 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>b</b>), 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>c</b>), 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>d</b>), 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>e</b>), and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>f</b>) before (dash line) and after (solid line) bias correction during the time period from 03:00 1 March to 21:00 30 March 2023.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>The temporal variation of the STDs of OMB for Channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>a</b>), 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>b</b>), 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>c</b>), 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>d</b>), 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>e</b>), and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>f</b>) before (dash line) and after (solid line) bias correction during the time period from 03:00 1 March to 21:00 30 March 2023.</p> "> Figure 6 Cont.
<p>The temporal variation of the STDs of OMB for Channels 671.25 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>a</b>), 675.625 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>b</b>), 686.875 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>c</b>), 699.375 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>d</b>), 703.75 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>e</b>), and 707.5 cm<sup>−1</sup> (<b>f</b>) before (dash line) and after (solid line) bias correction during the time period from 03:00 1 March to 21:00 30 March 2023.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>The RMSE reduction rate for the height, temperature, and wind analysis results of batch experiments (the black, blue, and red lines correspond to the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere, and the tropical region, respectively; the shadowed areas filled with black horizontal thin lines, blue vertical thin lines, and red dots correspond to error ranges in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, and the Tropical region, respectively) ((<b>a</b>): height field; (<b>b</b>): temperature field; (<b>c</b>): U—wind field; and (<b>d</b>): V—wind field).</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Score card of CMA-GFS for key atmospheric variables at lead times from T + 12 to T + 240 compared with the ERA5 analyses for Northern Hemisphere (<b>a</b>), Southern Hemisphere (<b>b</b>), and Tropical Region (<b>c</b>). An upward red triangle indicates a significant improvement in the forecast performance after assimilating FY-3E HIRAS data; a downward green triangle indicates a significantly worse forecast performance after assimilating FY-3E HIRAS data, a pink rectangle indicates better but not significant, a green rectangle indicates worse but not significant, and gray represents an equal effect.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>The ACC of the 500 hPa geopotential height field for the globe (<b>a</b>), Northern Hemisphere (<b>b</b>), Southern Hemisphere (<b>c</b>), and Tropical Region (<b>d</b>). The lines in the top half of figure (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) represent the ACC values of the FY3EHIRAS experiment (red line) and the CTRL experiment (black line) with T + 12 to T + 240 h forecast, respectively. The red line in the bottom half of figure (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) represents the difference in ACC values between the FY3EHIRAS and CTRL experiments.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>The RMSE of the 500 hPa temperature field for the globe (<b>a</b>), Northern Hemisphere (<b>b</b>), Southern Hemisphere (<b>c</b>), and Tropical Region (<b>d</b>). The black and red lines in the top half of figure (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) represent the RMSE of the T + 12 to T + 240 h forecasted 500 hPa temperature field relative to ECMWF’s forecasts for CTRL and FY3EHIRAS experiments, respectively. The red line in the bottom half of figure (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) represents the difference in RMSE between FY3EHIRAS and CTRL experiments.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data and Models
2.1. FY-3E HIRAS Data
2.2. CMA-GFS Global Four-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation System
2.3. ARMS Operational Operator
3. FY-3E HIRAS Data Assimilation
3.1. Data Preparation
3.2. Assimilation
Experiments Scheme | Assimilation Data |
---|---|
CTRL | Same as Table 3 |
FY3EHIRAS | CTRL + 56 IR Channel of FY-3E HIRAS (671.25 cm−1, 671.875 cm−1, 672.5 cm−1, 673.125 cm−1, 673.75 cm−1, 674.375 cm−1, 675 cm−1, 675.625 cm−1, 676.25 cm−1, 676.875 cm−1, 677.5 cm−1, 678.125 cm−1, 678.75 cm−1, 679.375 cm−1, 680 cm−1, 681.25 cm−1, 681.875 cm−1, 682.5 cm−1, 683.125 cm−1, 683.75 cm−1, 684.375 cm−1, 685 cm−1, 685.625 cm−1, 686.25 cm−1, 687.5 cm−1, 688.125 cm−1, 688.75 cm−1, 689.375 cm−1, 690 cm−1, 691.25 cm−1, 692.5 cm−1, 693.125 cm−1, 693.75 cm−1, 694.375 cm−1, 695 cm−1, 695.625 cm−1, 696.25 cm−1, 697.5 cm−1, 698.125 cm−1, 698.75 cm−1, 700 cm−1, 701.25 cm−1, 702.5 cm−1, 703.125 cm−1, 703.75 cm−1, 706.25 cm−1, 707.5 cm−1, 708.125 cm−1, 710 cm−1, 711.25 cm−1, 711.875 cm−1, 713.125 cm−1, 713.75 cm−1, 715 cm−1, 716.25 cm−1, 717.5 cm−1) |
Platform | Instrument | Variables |
---|---|---|
Conventional observation | TEMP | Wind, temperature, relative humidity |
SYNOP | Air pressure | |
SHIP | Air pressure | |
BUOY | wind | |
AIREP | Wind, Temperature | |
NOAA15 | AMSUA | Radiance of 7 MV bands |
NOAA18 | AMSUA, AMSUB | Radiance of 10 MV bands |
NOAA19 | AMSUA, AMSUB | Radiance of 11 MV bands |
NOAA20 | CRIS | Radiance of 80 IR bands |
NOAA20 | ATMS | Radiance of 12 MV bands |
Suomi-NPP | ATMS | Radiance of 12 MV bands |
FY-3C | MWHS | Radiance of 2 MV bands |
FY-3D | MWTS-2, MWHS-2, MWRI, HIRAS | Radiance of 6 MV bands, Radiance of 56 IR bands |
FY-3E | MWTS-2, MWHS-2, MWRI | Radiance of 12 MV bands |
FY-4A | GIIRS, AGRI | Radiance of 60 LWIR bands, radiance of 50 LWIR bands, radiance of 2 WV bands |
FY-2H | S-VISSR | Radiance of 1 WV bands |
Himawaii-8 | AHI | Radiance of 3 WV bands |
METOP-A | AMSUA, AMSUB, IASI | Radiance of 8 MV bands, radiance of 47 IR bands |
METOP-B | AMSUA, AMSUB, IASI | Radiance of 12 MV bands, radiance of 47 IR bands |
METOP-C | AMSUA, AMSUB, IASI | Radiance of 8 MV bands, radiance of 47 IR bands |
COSMIC, Metop-A/B/C GRAS, GRACE-A, TerraSAR-X, FY-3D GNOS | GNSS RO | Refractivity |
GPS-PW | Atmospheric column water vapor content | |
FY-2H, FY-2G GOES-16, GOES-18, MeteoSat-10, Himawai-9 | AMVs | Wind |
4. Assimilation Experiments and Impact of FY-3E HIRAS on Analysis and Forecast
4.1. Experiments Design
4.2. Analysis Fields Results
4.3. Influence on the Analysis Fields with FY-3E HIRAS Data Assimilation
5. Impact on CMA-GFS Forecasts with FY-3E HIRAS Data Assimilation
6. Summary and Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bauer, P.; Thorpe, A.; Brunet, G. The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature 2015, 525, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menzel, W.P.; Schmit, T.J.; Zhang, P.; Li, J. Satellite basedatmospheric infrared sounder development and applications. Bull Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2018, 99, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Liu, H. Improved hurricane track and intensity forecast using single field-of-view advanced IR sounding measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36, L11813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.P.; Lau, K.M.; Reale, O.; Rosenberg, R. AIRS impact on precipitation analysis and forecast of tropical cyclones in a global data assimilation and forecast system. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L0280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, Z.; Zhang, L. Validation of atmospheric infrared soundertemperature and moisture profiles over tropical oceans and their impact on numerical simulations of tropical cyclones. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2010, 115, D24114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miyoshi, T.; Kunii, M. Using AIRS retrievals in the WRF-LETKF system to improve regional numerical weather prediction. Tellus SerA. Dyn. Meterol. Oceanogr. 2012, 64, 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyre, J.R.; Kelly, G.A.; Mcnally, A.P.; Persson, A. Assimilation of TOVS radiance information through one-dimensional variational analysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 1993, 119, 1427–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNally, A.P.; Watts, P.D.; Smith, J.A.; Engelen, R. The assimilation of AIRS radiance data at ECMWF. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2006, 132, 935–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Marshall, J.; Jung, J.J.; Derber, J.; Eyre, J.R. Improving global analysis and forecasting with AIRS. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2006, 87, 891–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilton, F.; Atkinson, N.C.; English, S.J.; Eyre, R. Assimilation of IASI at the Met Office and assessment of its impact through observing system experiments. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2009, 135, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guidard, V.; Fouttie, N.; Brousseau, P.; Rabier, F. Impact of IASI assimilation at global and convective scales and challenges for the assimilation of cloudy scenes. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2011, 137, 1975–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collard, A.D. Assimilation of AIRS and IASI at ECMWF. In Proceedings of the ECMWF Seminar on Recent Developments in the Use of Satellite Observations in Numerical Weather Prediction, Reading, UK, 3–7 September 2007; pp. 3–7. [Google Scholar]
- Joo, S.; Eyre, J.; Marriott, R. The impact of Metop and other satellite data within the Met office global NWP system using an adjoint-based sensitivity method. Mon. Weather Rev. 2013, 141, 3331–3342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Wu, Z.J.; Zhang, H. Bias correction of infrared atmospheric sounding interferometer radiances for data assimilation. Trans. Atmos. Sci. 2016, 39, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.; Han, W.; Gao, Z.; Li, J. Impact of High Temporal Resolution FY-4A Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS) Radiance Measurements on Typhoon Forecasts: Maria (2018) Case with GRAPES Global 4D-Var Assimilation System. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2021GL093672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Liu, Z.; Huang, X.Y.; Min, J.; Wang, H. Impact of assimilating IASI radiance observations on forecasts of two tropical cyclones. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 2013, 122, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, A.H.N.; Jung, J.A.; Huang, H.A.; Ackerman, S.A.; Otkin, J.A. Assimilation of clear sky Atmospheric Infrared Sounder radiances in short-term regional forecasts using community models. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2014, 8, 083655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, P.; Hu, X.Q.; Lu, Q.F.; Zhu, A.J.; Lin, M.Y.; Sun, L.; Chen, L.; Xu, N. FY-3E: The first operational meteorological satellite mission in an early morning orbit. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2022, 39, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Ma, G.; Liu, G.; Li, J.; Zhang, H. The Evaluation of FY-3E Hyperspectral Infrared Atmospheric Sounder-II Long-Wave Temperature Sounding Channels. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 5525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, C.L.; Wu, C.Q.; Li, L. User guide for the use of Fengyun-3E Infrared Hyperspectral Sounder-II L1 product(v2.3). Available online: https://satellite.nsmc.org.cn/PortalSite/StaticContent/DocumentDownload.aspx?TypeID=22 (accessed on 28 June 2021).
- Zuo, F.H.; Hu, X.Q.; Wang, X.; Qi, C.L.; Xu, H.; Li, L. Positioning and Calibration Accuracy Evaluation of HIRAS-II by FY-3E Imager on Same Platform. Acta Opt. Sin. 2022, 42, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Y.; Guan, L. Spectrum accuracy evaluation of FY-3E hyperspectral infrared atmospheric sounder. Prog. Geophys. 2023, 38, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, X.S.; Su, Y.; Hu, J.L.; Wang, J.; Sun, J.; Xun, Y.; Han, W.; Zhang, H.; Lu, H.; Zhang, H.; et al. Development and operation transformation of GRAPES global middle-range forecast system. J. Appl. Meteor. Sci. 2017, 28, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Morcrette, J.J.; Barker, H.W.; Cole, J.N.S.; Iacono, M.J.; Pincus, R. Impact of a new radiation package, mcrad, in the ecmwf integrated forecasting system. Mon. Weather Rev. 2008, 136, 4773–4798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, Y.J.; Zeng, X.B.; Dickinson, R.E.; Baker, I.; Bonan, G.; Bosilovich, M.; Denning, A.; Dirmeyer, P.; Houser, P.; Niu, G.; et al. The common land model. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2003, 84, 1013–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.Y.; Pan, H.L. Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon. Weather Rev. 1996, 124, 2322–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arakawa, A.; Schubert, W.H. Interaction of a cumulus cloud ensemble with the large-scale environment, Part I. J. Atmos. Sci. 1974, 31, 674–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, H.L.; Wu, W.S. Implementing a Mass Flux Convective Parameterization Package for the NMC Medium Range Forecast Model. NMC Office Note 409 NOAA. 1995. Available online: http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/phys_refs/CU_PHYS/Old_SAS.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2023).
- Liu, K.; Chen, Q.Y.; Sun, J. Modification of cumulus convection and planetary boundary layer schemes in the GRAPES global model. J. Meteorol. Res. 2015, 29, 806–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.S.; Liu, Q.J.; Zhao, C.F.; Yung, L. Application and evaluation of an explicit prognostic cloud-cover scheme in GRAPES global forecast system. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 2018, 10, 652–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, C.; Liu, Q.J.; Ma, Z.S. Influences of sub-grid convective processes on cloud forecast in the GRAPES global model. Acta Meteorol. Sin. 2013, 71, 867–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.F.; Liu, Q.J.; Ma, Z.S. Influences of shallow convective process and boundary-layer clouds on cloud forecast in GRARES global model. Meteorol. Mon. 2015, 41, 921–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.J.; Liu, Q.J.; Ma, Z.S. A diagnostic study of cloud scheme for the GRAPES global forecast model. Acta Meteorol. Sin. 2021, 79, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Ma, Z.S.; Su, Y. Boundary layer coupling to charney-phillips vertical grid in GRAPES Model. J. Appl. Meteorol. Sci. 2017, 28, 52–61. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Ma, Z.S.; Li, Z.; Sun, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Jiang, Q. Vertical diffusion and cloud scheme coupling to thechrney phillips vertical grid in GRAPES global forecast system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2020, 146, 2191–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.Z.; Liu, Y.; Gong, J.; Lu, H.; Jin, Z.; Tian, W.; Liu, G.; Zhou, B.; Zhao, Z.; et al. The operational global four-dimensional variational data assimilation system at the China Meteorological Administration. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2019, 145, 1882–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Yu, H.P.; Huang, J.P. Assessment on unsystematic errors of GRAPES_GFS 2.0. J. Appl. Meteorol. Sci. 2019, 30, 332–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, F.Z.; Yu, X.W.; Duan, Y.H.; Yang, J.; Wang, J. Advanced Radiative Transfer Modeling System (ARMS): A New-Generation Satellite Observation Operator Developed for Numerical Weather Prediction and Remote Sensing Applications. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2020, 37, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Ding, S.; Dong, P.; Bi, L.; Yi, B. Advanced radiative transfer modeling system developed for satellite data assimilation and remote sensing applications. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2020, 251, 107043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.N.; Yang, J.; Weng, F.Z. Discrete Ordinate Adding Method (DOAM), a new solver for Advanced Radiative transfer Modeling System (ARMS). Opt. Express 2021, 29, 4700–4720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, B.A.; Kelly, G. A satellite radiance-bias correction scheme for data assimilation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2001, 127, 1453–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNally, A.P.; Watts, P.D. A cloud detection algorithm for highspectral-resolution infrared sounders. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2003, 129, 3411–3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di, D.; Li, J.; Han, W.; Bai, W.; Wu, C.; Menzel, W.P. Enhancing the fast radiative transfer model for FengYun-4 GIIRS by using local training profiles. J. Geophys. Res. 2018, 123, 12583–12596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.Y.; Han, W.; Gao, Z.Q.; Wang, G. A study on longwave infrared channel selection based on estimates of back-ground errors and observation errors in the detection area of FY-4A. Acta Meteorol. Sin. 2019, 77, 898–910. [Google Scholar]
- Rodgers, C.D. Information content and optimization of high spectral resolution remote measurements. Adv. Space Res. 1998, 21, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, B.; Hu, J.; Wang, D.; Zhang, B.A.; Chen, F.; Wan, Z.; Sun, S. The GRAPES evaluation tools based on Python (GetPy). CCF Trans. High Perform. Comput. 2023, 5, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ollinaho, P.; Bechtold, P.; Leutbecher, M.; Solonen, A.; Haario, H.; Järvinen, H. Parameter variations in prediction skill optimization at ECMWF. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 2013, 20, 1001–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | Value |
---|---|
Maximum scanning angle/(°) | 50.4° ± 0.1° |
Number of pixel/scan lines | 252(28 × 9) |
Field of regard/(°) | 3.6° |
Scan angle | 1° |
Scan period/s | 8 ± 0.1 S |
Focal plane detector configuration | 3 × 3 |
Spectral range/cm−1 | LWIR: 648.75~1169.375 cm−1 MWIR:1167.5~1921.25 cm−1 SWIR: 1919.375~2551.25 cm−1 |
Number of channels | 3053 |
Footprint diameter | 14 km |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, R.; Lu, Q.; Wu, C.; Ni, Z.; Wang, F. Assimilation of Hyperspectral Infrared Atmospheric Sounder Data of FengYun-3E Satellite and Assessment of Its Impact on Analyses and Forecasts. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050908
Liu R, Lu Q, Wu C, Ni Z, Wang F. Assimilation of Hyperspectral Infrared Atmospheric Sounder Data of FengYun-3E Satellite and Assessment of Its Impact on Analyses and Forecasts. Remote Sensing. 2024; 16(5):908. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050908
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Ruixia, Qifeng Lu, Chunqiang Wu, Zhuoya Ni, and Fu Wang. 2024. "Assimilation of Hyperspectral Infrared Atmospheric Sounder Data of FengYun-3E Satellite and Assessment of Its Impact on Analyses and Forecasts" Remote Sensing 16, no. 5: 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050908