Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32715303›Full record

ReviewReviews of geophysics (Washington, D.C. : 1985)2020

Spaceborne Cloud and Precipitation Radars: Status, Challenges, and Ways Forward.

Alessandro Battaglia, Pavlos Kollias, Ranvir Dhillon, Richard Roy, Simone Tanelli, Katia Lamer, Mircea Grecu, Matthew Lebsock, Daniel Watters, Kamil Mroz and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reviews of geophysics (Washington, D.C. : 1985), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Spaceborne Cloud and Precipitation Radars: Status, Challenges, and Ways Forward.Reviews of geophysics (Washington, D.C. : 1985) · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Alessandro BattagliaNational Centre for Earth Observation University of Leicester Leicester UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9243-3484
Pavlos KolliasSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences State University of New York at Stony Brook New York NY USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5984-7869
Ranvir DhillonEarth Observation Science, Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Leicester Leicester UK.
Richard RoyJet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USA.
Simone TanelliJet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USA.
Katia LamerEnvironmental and Climate Sciences Department Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton NY USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8328-5704
Mircea GrecuGESTAR, Morgan State University Laboratory for Atmospheres NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8600-1781
Matthew LebsockJet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-0090
Daniel WattersNational Centre for Earth Observation University of Leicester Leicester UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5080-706X
Kamil MrozNational Centre for Earth Observation University of Leicester Leicester UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3151-1300
Gerald HeymsfieldNASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6298-0233
Lihua LiNASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD USA.
Kinji FurukawaSpace Technology Directorate I Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Tokyo Japan.
University of Leicester · GBGoddard Space Flight Center · USJet Propulsion Laboratory · USBrookhaven National Laboratory · USJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency · JPState University of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spaceborne radars offer a unique three-dimensional view of the atmospheric components of the Earth's hydrological cycle. Existing and planned spaceborne radar missions provide cloud and precipitation information over the oceans and land difficult to access in remote areas. A careful look into their measurement capabilities indicates considerable gaps that hinder our ability to detect and probe key cloud and precipitation processes. The international community is currently debating how the next generation of spaceborne radars shall enhance current capabilities and address remaining gaps. Part of the discussion is focused on how to best take advantage of recent advancements in radar and space platform technologies while addressing outstanding limitations. First, the observing capabilities and measurement highlights of existing and planned spaceborne radar missions including TRMM, CloudSat, GPM, RainCube, and EarthCARE are reviewed. Then, the limitations of current spaceborne observing systems, with respect to observations of low-level clouds, midlatitude and high-latitude precipitation, and convective motions, are thoroughly analyzed. Finally, the review proposes potential solutions and future research avenues to be explored. Promising paths forward include collecting observations across a gamut of frequency bands tailored to specific scientific objectives, collecting observations using mixtures of pulse lengths to overcome trade-offs in sensitivity and resolution, and flying constellations of miniaturized radars to capture rapidly evolving weather phenomena. This work aims to increase the awareness about existing limitations and gaps in spaceborne radar measurements and to increase the level of engagement of the international community in the discussions for the next generation of spaceborne radar systems.

Indexed as

cloud microphysicsconvectionDopplerprecipitationradar

Identifiers

PMID32715303
PMCPMC7375167
OpenAlexW3034444408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.