Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Analysis of the accuracy of GNSS inferred precipitable water vapour against that from a 210 GHz WVR at the H.E.S.S. site

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read GNSS-derived precipitable water vapour at the H.E.S.S. site agrees with a 210 GHz radiometer to 0.34 mm, improving to 0.15 mm when a locally calibrated weighted-mean temperature is used.

desk verdict A competent site-testing cross-check that overstates its absolute accuracy: the 0.15 mm offset is in-sample, and the WVR reference inherits MERRA-2's own known bias at this site. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05346 v1 pith:Q4PFQPFQ submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.IM physics.ao-phphysics.data-an

Lott Frans , Michael Backes , Heino Falcke , Tiziana Venturi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.ao-phphysics.data-an
keywords precipitablewatervapourGNSS210GHzradiometerweightedmeantemperatureH.E.S.S.siteGamsbergAfricaMillimetreTelescopetesting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a GNSS station can be trusted to measure precipitable water vapour for millimetre and submillimetre astronomy, where water vapour is the main source of atmospheric opacity. The answer attempted here is a head-to-head test at the H.E.S.S. site in Namibia: PWV inferred from the GNSS station is compared with PWV from a 210 GHz water vapour radiometer over the shared observing period in 2024. The paper reports a 98% correlation and a mean offset of 0.34 mm when the standard NGL interpolated weighted-mean temperature is used, and 0.15 mm when a locally calibrated weighted-mean-temperature model is used instead. A sympathetic reading is that this makes the GNSS-based PWV values previously published for H.E.S.S. and the nearby Gamsberg mountain reliable to a few tenths of a millimetre, which matters for deciding whether either site can host the Africa Millimetre Telescope.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of conversions between three quantities: radiometer opacity, PWV, and GNSS wet delay. The radiometer obtains zenith opacity $\tau_0$ at 210 GHz by a tipping-curve method that assumes an isothermal atmosphere; a quadratic fit to 24 years of MERRA-2 data at the site, $PWV = A\tau_0^2 + B\tau_0 + C$ with $A = -2.601052$ mm, $B = 22.0007$ mm, $C = -0.3455$ mm, turns that opacity into PWV. The GNSS side uses the standard relation $PWV = H(T_m)\,ZWD$, with the zenith wet delay obtained from NGL products and on-site pressure, and the new ingredient is a piecewise local weighted-mean-temperature model $T_m = 7.03\,T_s - 1742.64$ K for $T_s \le 290$ K and $T_m = -2.28\,T_s + 957.11$ K for $T_s > 290$ K. Calibrating that model requires pairing radiometer PWV with GNSS ZWD and surface temperature only when relative humidity is above 40%, and a 3-$\sigma$ filter on the difference between the two instruments removes 4.75% of the radiometer points as unphysical scatter.

What would settle it

Co-locate a radiosonde balloon programme at the H.E.S.S. site across at least one wet and one dry season and compare its PWV profiles with simultaneous GNSS and 210 GHz radiometer PWV; a systematic offset between the radiosonde and both instruments that follows the sign of the MERRA-2-based conversion would show that the GNSS-radiometer agreement is a shared-model effect, not absolute accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that PWV from a GNSS station can be made essentially interchangeable with PWV from a 210 GHz radiometer: a correlation of 0.98, a standard deviation of 1.29 mm, and a mean offset of 0.34 mm with the NGL interpolated weighted-mean temperature, improving to 0.15 mm with a piecewise $T_m(T_s)$ model derived on site. The radiometer's 210 GHz opacity is converted to PWV through a quadratic fit built from 24 years of MERRA-2 data at the site, and the GNSS PWV is converted back to opacity through the inverse fit, so the comparison is carried by two model-based conversions meeting in the middle. Because the two GNSS stations are identical and processed in the same way, the paper asserts that the calibration transfers to the Gamsberg station, meaning both candidate sites for the Africa Millimetre Telescope now have PWV measurements with a stated agreement of a few tenths of a millimetre.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison treats the 210 GHz radiometer as the truth reference, but the radiometer's PWV values are themselves produced by a quadratic model fitted to 24 years of MERRA-2 weather-reanalysis data and a tipping-curve method that assumes an isothermal atmosphere, so any bias in that model is inherited by both instruments and the agreement is between two model-dependent estimates rather than a measurement of absolute accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The GNSS PWV values previously reported for H.E.S.S. and Gamsberg (median 14.27 mm and 9.25 mm) can be treated as accurate to within a few tenths of a millimetre, strengthening the earlier conclusion that Gamsberg is the drier site.
  • A GNSS station plus an on-site weather station can serve as a continuous, low-cost PWV monitor for the Africa Millimetre Telescope, reducing the need to keep a radiometer at the site.
  • With the local $T_m(T_s)$ model, GNSS PWV can be computed using only GNSS data, on-site pressure, and surface temperature, without relying on interpolated NGL temperature products.
  • The 0.15-0.34 mm offsets are smaller than the 0.64 mm offset reported for the Atacama comparison, suggesting the same GNSS method can meet or beat the accuracy achieved at established millimetre sites.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the radiometer's PWV scale and the NGL temperature products both descend from reanalysis data, the close GNSS-WVR agreement is best read as mutual consistency; an independent radiosonde campaign would certify absolute PWV.
  • The break in the $T_m(T_s)$ relation near 290 K suggests two distinct air-mass or seasonal regimes; testing the same piecewise form at Gamsberg and other southern African stations would show whether the calibration transfers or must be locally retuned.
  • The paper's dual PWV-opacity fits provide a direct way to translate GNSS PWV into 210 GHz opacity, which could eventually feed real-time opacity forecasts used for scheduling millimetre and submillimetre observations and for correcting interferometric phases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper validates GNSS-derived precipitable water vapour (PWV) at the H.E.S.S. site against PWV from a 210 GHz water vapour radiometer (WVR). The authors build a quadratic PWV–opacity conversion at 210 GHz from 24 years of MERRA-2 data (Section 2.1, Table 1), compute GNSS PWV using NGL zenith delays, on-site pressure, and either NGL or locally derived weighted-mean temperature (Tm), and compare 15-minute averages over April–August 2024. After removing 4.75% of points via a 3-sigma difference cutoff, they report a 98% correlation and a 0.34 mm offset with NGL Tm, improving to 0.15 mm with a locally derived piecewise Tm–Ts model (Eq. 20). The paper concludes that the GNSS stations at H.E.S.S. and Gamsberg give reliable PWV to within a few tenths of a millimetre.

Significance. If the claimed accuracy holds, the study provides a useful and inexpensive validation of GNSS PWV for site testing of the Africa Millimetre Telescope, and the local Tm–Ts relation (Eq. 20) is a practical product for the region. The paper also demonstrates a transparent reduction chain from raw radiometer voltages to PWV. The strength of the work lies in the direct side-by-side comparison using identical instrumentation and the explicit modelling of the PWV–opacity relation. However, the central 'accuracy' claim is contingent on the WVR being an absolute reference, which is not established: the WVR conversion is anchored to MERRA-2 reanalysis, and the paper itself cites a 7.45% MERRA-2–GNSS PWV difference at this site. The 0.15 mm improvement from the local Tm model is an in-sample calibration result because the Tm model is fitted to the same WVR PWV used in the comparison. These issues do not invalidate the comparison as a consistency check, but they do prevent the current version from supporting the absolute-accuracy statement in the title and abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.1] The WVR is used as the reference truth, but its PWV is obtained by converting zenith opacity with a quadratic fitted to 24 years of MERRA-2 data (Eq. 1, Table 1). The paper itself reports in the Introduction that MERRA-2 PWV differs from GNSS PWV at this site by 7.45% (Frans et al. 2025). This means the WVR is effectively a MERRA-2-calibrated instrument, so the reported 0.34 mm and 0.15 mm offsets measure agreement between GNSS and a MERRA-2-based model, not absolute PWV accuracy. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the offsets to plausible biases in the MERRA-2 PWV–opacity relation (e.g., propagate the 7.45% difference into WVR PWV and recompute the offsets), or provide an independent calibration (radiosonde, or comparison with another established radiometer). Without this, the title's claim of 'accuracy' is not supported.
  2. [Appendix A1 and Section 3.2] The local Tm model (Eq. 20) is derived by regressing the ZWD–PWV slope, obtained from the 210 GHz WVR PWV and GNSS ZWD, against surface temperature (Figure A1 and Figure 7). The comparison in Figure A2 then uses GNSS PWV computed with this same Tm model against the same WVR PWV. This is an in-sample calibration check: the reduction in offset from 0.34 mm to 0.15 mm is expected by construction and does not constitute independent validation. The authors should validate Eq. 20 with withheld data (e.g., a temporal hold-out split) or against an independent Tm source (e.g., radiosonde or an NWP-based Tm), and report the comparison separately for the fitting and validation subsets.
  3. [Section 3.1] The 3-sigma flagging procedure removes 4.75% of the data based on the very difference being analysed, with thresholds of -3.52 mm and 4.21 mm. The paper states that the flagged points are radiometer artifacts, but this is an assumption; no instrument log or independent diagnostic is provided to show these are not real PWV variability. Moreover, no uncertainties are reported for the correlation, offset, or standard deviation (e.g., standard error of the mean offset, confidence intervals), and the effective sample size after 15-minute averaging and temporal correlation is not discussed. The authors should report uncertainties and show that the conclusions are robust to the outlier cutoff (e.g., recompute statistics without any flagging and with different sigma thresholds).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The text contains several typographical errors and missing spaces (e.g., 'calculated' and 'calculatethe' in the abstract; 'insitu' for 'in situ'). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Figure A1 captions] Figure A1 captions state 'RH < 40 %' for all panels, but Section A1 says measurements with relative humidity greater than 40% were used. This appears to be a typo and should be corrected to 'RH > 40 %'.
  3. [Figure 2 and Table 1] The caption for Figure 2 describes red and blue lines, but the colours are not used consistently in the figure text; also, the units of the polynomial coefficients in Table 1 should be stated explicitly (e.g., A in mm, B in mm, C in mm for the PWV vs tau0 fit).
  4. [Section 3.1] The reported 'correlation of 98%' is the Pearson coefficient from the linear fit on the cleaned data; the paper should state this explicitly and also report the coefficient for the raw (uncleaned) data to demonstrate the effect of the flagging.
  5. [Section 3.2 and Conclusions] The statement that offsets of 0.34 mm and 0.15 mm are 'essentially negligible' is made without a quantitative criterion for what is acceptable for AMT observations. Please relate the offsets to a PWV accuracy requirement, for example the typical phase-noise or opacity tolerance at 1 mm or 0.8 mm wavelengths.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 0.15 mm offset obtained with the locally derived Tm is an in-sample calibration check, not an independent validation, because the Tm model is fitted to the same WVR PWV values against which it is later compared.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Appendix A1 (Eq. A1-A2, Eq. 20), Table 2, Figure A2]
    "The 210 GHz WVR provided the PWV data, and the GNSS station provided the ZTD and Ts for the analysis ... These GNSS station PWV data which are based on insitu pressure and temperature were then compared to the 210 GHz WVR PWV measurements as can be seen in Figure A2. ... the offset reduced to 0.15 mm compared to 0.34 mm of when the NGL interpolated mean temperature was used."

    The local Tm model (Eq. 20) is fitted in Appendix A1 by computing H = PWV/ZWD from WVR PWV and GNSS ZWD, solving for Tm via Eq. 17, and regressing Tm against Ts. The GNSS PWV computed with this model is PWV = H(Tm(Ts)) x ZWD, so it is constructed from the same WVR PWV values to which it is later compared in Figure A2 and Table 2. The reported 0.15 mm offset is therefore a measure of the in-sample fit quality of Eq. 20, and the reduction from 0.34 mm is expected by construction rather than independent evidence that the local Tm model is more accurate.

full rationale

The paper's only directly circular step is the local-Tm validation. The NGL-Tm comparison is substantially more independent: the GNSS PWV is computed from NGL interpolated Tm and in-situ pressure, and then compared with WVR PWV converted from opacity via a MERRA-2 fit. However, the absolute PWV scale of the WVR is set by that MERRA-2 conversion (Section 2.1), and the paper itself cites Frans et al. (2025), by overlapping authors, reporting a 7.45% difference between MERRA-2 PWV and GNSS PWV at this site. That tension is a correctness risk for the 0.34 mm claim, but it is not circular because the WVR PWV is not derived from the GNSS PWV. The self-citations to Frans et al. (2025) are used for data-processing details and for the reported MERRA-2/GNSS discrepancy, not as a uniqueness argument or a load-bearing premise, so they do not by themselves raise the circularity score. Overall, one key reported result (the 0.15 mm offset) reduces to an in-sample fit, while the more independent NGL-based comparison remains available; this is partial circularity rather than complete collapse of the paper's derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on two fitted conversion layers: the MERRA-2 PWV-opacity quadratic used for the WVR, and the Tm-Ts piecewise model calibrated on the same WVR data. The most consequential free parameters are the Tm coefficients, because the improved 0.15 mm offset is produced by fitting those coefficients to the reference instrument. The remaining listed axioms are standard domain assumptions for radiometer and GNSS PWV work, plus one ad hoc data-cleaning choice.

free parameters (5)
  • PWV-opacity quadratic coefficients (PWV vs tau0) = A = -2.601052 mm, B = 22.0007 mm, C = -0.3455 mm
    Fitted to 24 years of MERRA-2 PWV/opacity pairs and used to convert WVR opacity to PWV (Table 1).
  • Opacity-PWV quadratic coefficients (tau0 vs PWV) = A = 0.000480 mm^-2, B = 0.0421 mm^-1, C = 0.029
    Used to convert GNSS PWV to opacity; less central to the PWV comparison but part of the same fitted model family.
  • Tm model coefficients for Ts <= 290 K = a = 7.03, b = -1742.64 K
    Fitted to WVR-derived Tm and surface temperature; used to compute on-site Tm in equation 20.
  • Tm model coefficients for Ts > 290 K = a = -2.28, b = 957.11 K
    Fitted to WVR-derived Tm and surface temperature; used to compute on-site Tm in equation 20.
  • 3-sigma outlier cutoff = 3 sigma on GNSS-WVR PWV difference; 4.75% removed
    Chosen to remove scatter in the WVR data; directly affects the computed correlation and offsets, and is not independently justified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The radiometer tipping-curve calibration assumes an isothermal atmosphere (T_Load approximately equals T_atm).
    Equations 12 to 15 rely on this assumption; if it fails, the retrieved opacities and hence WVR PWV values are biased.
  • domain assumption The MERRA-2 reanalysis represents the PWV-opacity relationship at the H.E.S.S. site without significant bias.
    Section 2.1 builds the conversion model from 24 years of MERRA-2 data and does not validate it against independent local profiles.
  • domain assumption Nevada Geodetic Laboratory ZTD and Tm products are accurate enough for this comparison.
    The GNSS PWV derivation uses NGL ZTD and Tm as inputs; errors in these products propagate directly into the PWV comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3-sigma flagging removes only radiometer artifacts and not real PWV variability.
    Section 3.1 flags 4.75% of points based on the difference distribution; no independent evidence shows these are not genuine atmospheric events.
  • domain assumption The H.E.S.S. Tm model applies to Gamsberg Mountain without local validation.
    Section 4 states the model 'shall also apply' to Gamsberg, based on proximity and similar meteorology, but no Gamsberg WVR data are shown.
  • domain assumption Relative humidity above 40% is a valid selection criterion for the Tm calibration.
    Appendix A1 follows Sugiyama et al. (2024) but provides no local justification for this threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of the accuracy of GNSS inferred precipitable water vapour against that from a 210 GHz WVR at the H.E.S.S. site." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4PFQPFQ

@misc{pith2026250505346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of the accuracy of GNSS inferred precipitable water vapour against that from a 210 GHz WVR at the H.E.S.S. site},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4PFQPFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05346}
}
abstract

The High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.) site and the Gamsberg Mountain have been identified as potential sites for the Africa Millimetre Telescope (AMT). The AMT is poised to observe at millimetre and possibly at submillimetre wavelengths. At these wavelengths, precipitable water vapour (PWV) in the atmosphere is the main source of opacity during observations and therefore needs to be accurately assessed at the potential sites for the AMT. In order to investigate the PWV conditions for the AMT, identical Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations were installed and used to assess the PWV at the two potential sites. In this study, the accuracy of those PWV measurements by the GNSS stations was assessed by comparing the H.E.S.S. installed GNSS station PWV measurements to that from a 210 GHz Water Vapour Radiometer (WVR) also installed at the H.E.S.S. site. A correlation of 98% and an offset of 0.34 mm was found between the GNSS station and the 210 GHz WVR PWV data when on-site pressure and the Nevada Geodetic Laboratory (NGL) weighted mean temperature ($\mathrm{T_m}$) were used calculate the GNSS station PWV data. In comparison, the offset reduces to 0.15 mm when on-site derived $\mathrm{T_m}$ and pressure were used to calculate the GNSS station PWV. The results show that the GNSS station with on-site meteorological data can be used with high accuracy to reliably determine the PWV conditions at the H.E.S.S. site.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GNSS station (left, in white) installed in 2022 and 210 GHz WVR (right) installed in 2024 to validate GNSS PWV data at the H.E.S.S. site. respect to on-site Ts for the H.E.S.S. site and the region in general by using the 210 GHz WVR and GNSS station data. 2 METHODS Since both GNSS stations installed at Gamsberg Mountain and at the H.E.S.S. site are identical in design and the same methods were applied in calculating… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Models between PWV vs opacity at 210 GHz based on 24 years of MERRA-2 data at the H.E.S.S. site. was fitted with the coefficients provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GNSS station PWV and opacity as deduced from the relationship in Figure 2b at the H.E.S.S. site. The NGL Tm and on site pressure was used in the calculation of PWV. inserting equation 6 into equation 7, we can rewrite equation 7 as, 𝑇sky = 𝜂𝑇atm 1 − 𝑒 −𝜏  + 𝑇rec. (8) The temperature load reference is given by, 𝑇ref = 𝜂𝑇L + 𝑇rec (9) solving for the receiver temperature 𝑇rec in equation 9 and inserting it into equati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 210 GHz Radiometer opacity and PWV as deduced from Figure 2a at the H.E.S.S. site. 3 RESULTS 3.1 GNSS and 210 GHz Radiometer Comparison In order to compare the GNSS station and 210 GHz WVR data, both datasets were converted into 15 minutes integration period. The over￾…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 210 GHz Radiometer and GNSS station PWV measured over the same period at the H.E.S.S. site. measurements and is given by, Tm = ∫ 𝑃𝑤 𝑇 𝑑𝑧 ∫ 𝑃𝑤 𝑇2 𝑑𝑧 (18) 𝑃𝑤 and 𝑇 are the water vapour pressure and the temperature respec￾tively (Combrink 2006; Sugiyama et al. 2024). Due …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: GNSS station and the 210 GHz WVR data after flagging data were the difference of the measurements between the GNSS station and 210 GHz is outside 3𝜎. RASTI 000, 1–9 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relationship between Ts and Tm at the H.E.S.S. site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Nordius , H., 1987

    Askne , J. & Nordius , H., 1987. Estimation of tropospheric delay for microwaves from surface weather data , Radio Science\/ , 22 (3), 379--386

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    E., Deane , R., Evans , R., Falcke , H., Fraga-Encinas , R., Goddi , C., Klein Wolt , M., Krichbaum , T

    Backes , M., M \"u ller , C., Conway , J. E., Deane , R., Evans , R., Falcke , H., Fraga-Encinas , R., Goddi , C., Klein Wolt , M., Krichbaum , T. P., MacLeod , G., Ribeiro , V. A. R. M., Roelofs , F., Shen , Z. Q., & van Langevelde , H. J., 2016. The Africa Millimetre Telescope , in The 4th Annual Conference on High Energy Astrophysics in Southern Africa...

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    K., 2023

    Backes , M., Steenkamp , R., Kasai , E., & Matengu , K. K., 2023. The Namibian Multi-wavelength Observatory Towards Sustained Astronomy in Namibia , in Space Fostering African Societies\/ , pp. 31--44, 'Springer New York'

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    F., & Frans, L

    Backes, M., Macucule, F. F., & Frans, L. N., 2024. Measurements of Precipitable Water Vapour for the Africa Millimetre Telescope , PoS\/ , HEASA2023 , 003

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A., Rocken, C., Anthes, R

    Bevis, M., Businger, S., Herring, T. A., Rocken, C., Anthes, R. A., & Ware, R. H., 1992. Gps meteorology: Remote sensing of atmospheric water vapor using the global positioning system, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres\/ , 97 (D14), 15787--15801

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Harnessing the gps data explosion for interdisciplinary science, Eos\/ , 99 (2), e2020943118

    Blewitt, G., Hammond, W., & Kreemer, C., 2018. Harnessing the gps data explosion for interdisciplinary science, Eos\/ , 99 (2), e2020943118

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Boehm, J., Werl, B., & Schuh, H., 2006. Troposphere mapping functions for gps and very long baseline interferometry from european centre for medium-range weather forecasts operational analysis data, Journal of geophysical research: solid earth\/ , 111 (B2)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Combrink, A. Z. A., 2006. Sensing atmospheric water vapour using the global positioning system\/ , Ph.D. thesis, University of Cape Town

    work page 2006

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    M., Abdelfatah, M

    Elhaty, N. M., Abdelfatah, M. A., Mousa, A. E., & El-Fiky, G. S., 2019. Gnss meteorology in egypt: Modeling weighted mean temperature from radiosonde data, Alexandria Engineering Journal\/ , 58 (2), 443--450

    2019

  2. [10]

    A comparative analysis of GNSS-inferred precipitable water vapour at the potential sites for the Africa Millimetre Telescope , \/ , 537 (2), 1357--1368

    Frans , L., Backes , M., Falcke , H., & Venturi , T., 2025. A comparative analysis of GNSS-inferred precipitable water vapour at the potential sites for the Africa Millimetre Telescope , \/ , 537 (2), 1357--1368

    2025

  3. [11]

    Instrumentation for comparing night sky quality and atmospheric conditions of cta site candidates, Journal of Instrumentation\/ , 10 , P04012

    Fruck , C., Gaug , M., Ernenwein , J.-P., Mand \'a t , D., Schweizer , T., H \"a fner , D., Bulik , T., Cieslar , M., Costantini , H., Dominik , M., Ebr , J., Garczarczyk , M., Lorentz , E., Pareschi , G., Pech , M., Puerto-Gim \'e nez , I., & Teshima , M., 2015. Instrumentati...

    2015

  4. [12]

    F., Skrutskie , M

    Hiriart , D., Goldsmith , P. F., Skrutskie , M. F., & Salas , L., 1997. Atmospheric Opacity at 215 GHz over San Pedro Martir Sierra in Baja California , \/ , 33 , 59-- 68

    1997

  5. [13]

    N., Eck , T

    Holben , B. N., Eck , T. F., Slutsker , I., Tanr \'e , D., Buis , J. P., Setzer , A., Vermote , E., Reagan , J. A., Kaufman , Y. J., Nakajima , T., Lavenu , F., Jankowiak , I., & Smirnov , A., 1998. AERONET A Federated Instrument Network and Data Archive for Aerosol Characteri...

    1998

  6. [14]

    C., Graves , S

    Nikolic , B., Bolton , R. C., Graves , S. F., Hills , R. E., & Richer , J. S., 2013. Phase correction for ALMA with 183 GHz water vapour radiometers , \/ , 552 , A104

    2013

  7. [15]

    Ohm , S., Wagner , S., & H. E. S. S. Collaboration , 2023. Current status and operation of the H.E.S.S. array of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A\/ , 1055 , 168442

    2023

  8. [16]

    C., Querel , R., & Kerber , F., 2011

    Otarola , A. C., Querel , R., & Kerber , F., 2011. Precipitable Water Vapor: Considerations on the water vapor scale height, dry bias of the radiosonde humidity sensors, and spatial and temporal variability of the humidity field , arXiv e-prints\/ , p. arXiv:1103.3025

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    W., Palumbo , D., Paine , S

    Raymond , A. W., Palumbo , D., Paine , S. N., Blackburn , L., C \'o rdova Rosado , R., Doeleman , S. S., Farah , J. R., Johnson , M. D., Roelofs , F., Tilanus , R. P. J., & Weintroub , J., 2021. Evaluation of New Submillimeter VLBI Sites for the Event Horizon Telescope , \/ , ...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Final Summary Report: Environmental conditions on Potential Observatories, gamsberg astroclimatological summary report, VLT.TRE.ESO.17400\/ , Accessed 2024-01-19

    Sarazin, M., 1995. Final Summary Report: Environmental conditions on Potential Observatories, gamsberg astroclimatological summary report, VLT.TRE.ESO.17400\/ , Accessed 2024-01-19

    1995

  11. [19]

    Measuring the Amount of Precipitable Water Vapour with VISIR , in 2007 ESO Instrument Calibration Workshop\/ , p

    Smette , A., Horst , H., & Navarrete , J., 2008. Measuring the Amount of Precipitable Water Vapour with VISIR , in 2007 ESO Instrument Calibration Workshop\/ , p. 433

    2008

  12. [20]

    Sugiyama, J., Nishino, H., & Kusaka, A., 2024. Precipitable water vapour measurement using GNSS data in the Atacama Desert for millimetre and submillimetre astronomical observations , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society\/ , 528 (3), 4582--4590

    2024

  13. [21]

    Satellite-based atmospheric characterization for sites of interest in millimeter and sub-millimeter astronomy , \/ , 684 , A186

    Valeria , L., Mart \' nez-Ledesma , M., & Reeves , R., 2024. Satellite-based atmospheric characterization for sites of interest in millimeter and sub-millimeter astronomy , \/ , 684 , A186

    2024

  14. [22]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence a...

  15. [23]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.