Why is GWD at Rio in 2009 so different?

[kuchaale]

See the GWD_analysis here.

January 2009 was removed from the analysis by de Wit et al. [2017]

As in de Wit et al. [2016], months during which radio interference was especially significant (December 2008 to January 2009, February 2010, February 2011, and June–August 2013) were removed to increase data reliability.

and de Wit et al. [2016]

To increase reliability, time and height intervals for which less than 5000 meteors were available for the GW MF determination were excluded from further analysis, as were months during which instrument interference problems were detected (December 2008 to January 2009, February 2010, February 2011, and June–August 2013).

To-do list

• [ ] compare momentum fluxes climatology with de Wit et al. [2017]

[kuchaale]

@Gunter-cmd: "There was an issue with the phases of the receiver array." We need to remove the following dates from our analyses of Rio Grande, @gast-ben.

    idx=find(year==2008 & Res.Doy>=325 & Res.Doy<=340);
    idx=find(year==2008 & Res.Doy>=355);  
    idx=find(year==2009 & Res.Doy<=31 );
    idx=find(year==2011 & Res.Doy>=45 & Res.Doy<=54);

which is a pity since first 15 days of January 2009 revealed negative zonal momentum fluxes (see below) inducing negative GWD.

[kuchaale]

Inspired by Kadow et al 2020, I would like to advertise a thesis topic on filling data gaps in meteor radar measurements using ML (see their code here).