Fig. 1 IGS network with tropospheric estimates (Sites in gray have meteorologicalpackages)

Fig.2 Geographical distribution for mean standard deviation of ZPD estimates

analysed by >2 AC analysed by 2 AC analysed by 1 AC

.

large stddev small stddev

.

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

ZPD Stddev Repea.Sta*0.3 CODE

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

EMR

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

ESA

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

GFZ

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

JPL

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

NGS

AL

BH

AL

GO

AU

CK

BA

HR

BR

MU

CA

S1

C

HA

T

C

RO

1

DR

AO

FA

IR

G

OL

2

HO

B2

IR

KT

KIT

3

KO

SG

M

AC

1

MA

DR

MA

TE

MC

M4

M

DO

1

MD

VO

ME

TS

M

KE

A

N

LIB

ON

SA

P

ER

T

R

CM

6

RE

YK

STJO

TH

U1

T

ID2

U

SUD

WE

S2

W

HIT

WT

ZR

YA

R1

Y

EL

L

Z

WE

N

K

OU

R

L

HA

S

AR

EQ

ASC

1

BR

AZ

DG

AR

GU

AM

HA

RK

FO

RT

IISC

KE

RG

KO

KB

KW

J1

M

AL

I

MA

S1

SA

NT

SHA

O

T

AE

J

TA

HI

T

SKB

WU

HN

CO

CO

LP

GS

Fig.3 Difference between AC ZPD and IGS Combined ZPD. Mean of weekly standarddeviation for individual sites. Repeatability of station solutions (scaled by correlationfactor 0.3) are given for comparison.

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

Repea. Bias |Bias| CODE

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

EMR

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

ESA

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

GFZ

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

JPL

0.3.6.9.

12.15.

ZP

D[m

m]

NGS

AL

BH

AL

GO

AU

CK

BA

HR

BR

MU

CA

S1

C

HA

T

C

RO

1

DR

AO

FA

IR

G

OL

2

HO

B2

IR

KT

KIT

3

KO

SG

M

AC

1

MA

DR

MA

TE

MC

M4

M

DO

1

MD

VO

ME

TS

M

KE

A

N

LIB

ON

SA

P

ER

T

R

CM

6

RE

YK

STJO

TH

U1

T

ID2

U

SUD

WE

S2

W

HIT

WT

ZR

YA

R1

Y

EL

L

Z

WE

N

K

OU

R

L

HA

S

AR

EQ

ASC

1

BR

AZ

DG

AR

GU

AM

HA

RK

FO

RT

IISC

KE

RG

KO

KB

KW

J1

M

AL

I

MA

S1

SA

NT

SHA

O

T

AE

J

TA

HI

T

SKB

WU

HN

CO

CO

Fig. 4. Difference between AC ZPD and IGS Combined ZPD. Mean of weekly bias(magnitude of bias) and bias repeatability from week to week

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.2.

4.

6.

8.

10.

ZP

D[m

m]

Stddev

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.-4.-3.

-2.

-1.

0.

1.

2.

3.4.

ZP

D[m

m]

Bias

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.-4.-3.

-2.

-1.

0.

1.

2.

3.4.

ZP

D[m

m]

Bias (extract) CODE

GFZ JPL

Fig. 5 Difference between AC ZPD and IGS Combined ZPD. Mean values (mean over all sites) per week and Analysis Center

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.-18.-12.-6.0.6.

12.18.

ZP

D[m

m]

KOSG Fiducial

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.-18.-12.-6.0.6.

12.18.

ZP

D[m

m]

YELL Fiducial

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.-18.-12.-6.0.6.

12.18.

ZP

D[m

m]

FORT

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.-18.-12.-6.0.6.

12.18.

ZP

D[m

m]

GUAM

890. 893. 896. 899. 902. 905. 908. 911. 914. 917. 920. 923. 926. 929. 932. 935. 938.-18.-12.-6.0.6.

12.18.

ZP

D[m

m]

KERG

Fig. 6 Difference between AC ZPD and IGS Combined ZPD. Mean bias per week and Analysis Center

910 915 920 925 930 935 940 915 920 925 930 935 940-18.

-12.

-6.

0.

6.

12.

18. Z

PD

[mm

]

IGS IGS-calibrated

FORT

910 915 920 925 930 935 940 915 920 925 930 935 940-18.

-12.

-6.

0.

6.

12.

18.

ZP

D[m

m]

IGS IGS-calibrated

GUAM

910 915 920 925 930 935 940 915 920 925 930 935 940-18.

-12.

-6.

0.

6.

12.

18.

ZP

D[m

m]

IGS IGS-calibrated

KERG

Fig. 7 Difference between AC ZPD and IGS Combined ZPD. Mean bias per week andAnalysis Center. Left: Values from Fig. 6. Right: Results with bias corrections bycorrelation between station height and ZPD.

0. 30. 60. 90. 120. 150. 180. 210. 240. 270. 300. 330. 360.

AUCK BAHR CHAT FAIR GODE HERS KIT3 KOKB LHAS MDO1 METS MLRS OBER POTS REYK USNO WTZR ZIMM ZWEN

Fig.8 Statistics for existing RINEX Met Files at CDDIS. Days with gaps > 2 hours are marked with ■.

97200. 97220. 97240. 97260. 97280. 97300. 97320. 97340. 973600.

1.

2.

3.

PW

V [m

m]

CODE - WVR

GFZ - WVR Stddev

97200. 97220. 97240. 97260. 97280. 97300. 97320. 97340. 97360-2.

-1.

0.

1.

2.

3.

4.

PW

V [m

m]

Bias

Fig. 9 Comparison of PWV estimates from GPS and WVR at POTS. GPS results are from IGS site POTS (CODE and GFZ solutions) and WVR data are from the Meteorological Observatory Potsdam, 400 apart from GPS receiver

97250. 97260. 97270.0.5.

10.

15.

20.

25.

30.

35.40.

PW

V [

mm

]

COD GFZ WVR

97280. 97290. 97300.0.5.

10.

15.

20.

25.

30.

35.40.

PW

V [

mm

]

97292. 97293.15.

20.

25.

97310. 97320. 97330.0.5.

10.

15.

20.

25.

30.

35.40.

PW

V [

mm

]

97322. 97323. 97324.2.

4.

6.

8.

10.

12.

Fig. 10 Comparison of PWV estimates from GPS and WVR at POTS. GPS results are from IGS site POTS (CODE and GFZ solutions) and WVR data are from the Meteorological Observatory Potsdam, 400 apart from GPS receiver