## 4 Results and Discussion
### PlanetiQ-COSMIC Profiles Comparison  
#### 4.2.1 Single Profile Comparison  
A comparative analysis of atmospheric profiles retrieved from the PlanetiQ and COSMIC missions was conducted, focusing on key meteorological parameters such as pressure, temperature, WVP, and refractivity (Figure 9). Our investigation encompassed altitudes ranging from the surface up to 20 km. The mean differences between the two datasets revealed subtle distinctions in atmospheric conditions. Specifically, the PlanetiQ dataset's mean pressure increased by 0.26 mb when compared to the COSMIC dataset. The temperature exhibited a marginal decrease of \(-0.02\)\({}^{\circ}\)C in the PlanetiQ profiles, indicating a  
Figure 8: Global distribution of PlanetiQ RO events for DOY 342 based on GNSS constellations and LEO satellites. subtle cooling trend relative to the COSMIC profiles. The WVP content displayed a small reduction of \(-0.08\) mb in the PlanetIQ dataset, signifying a nuanced divergence in humidity profiles. Refractivity differences revealed a decrease of \(-0.23\) in PlanetIQ compared to COSMIC, implying variations in the atmospheric refractive index. Examining specific altitudes, our analysis at 10 km revealed negligible differences in pressure (0.00 mb) and a more pronounced cooling trend in Temperature (\(-0.16\)\({}^{\circ}\)C) for PlanetIQ versus COSMIC. The WVP content showed a marginal increase of 0.01 mb in PlanetIQ, suggesting subtle humidity fluctuations. Refractivity differences at 10 km exhibited a positive shift of 0.15 in PlanetIQ, pointing to differences in atmospheric composition. At 20 km, the findings demonstrated a rise in pressure (0.13 mb) in PlanetIQ, coupled with a more significant warming trend in Temperature (0.40 \({}^{\circ}\)C). The WVP content showed minimal differences (0.00 mb), while the refractivity exhibited a slight increase of 0.01 in PlanetIQ. However, the present findings should be considered in light of the single-profile comparison results presented by [15], which highlighted differences in relative errors between datasets. While our study revealed subtle distinctions in atmospheric conditions, Ref. [15] found mean absolute differences for pressure, temperature, WVP, and refractivity and calculated relative errors as percentages. Notably, their analysis indicated that the difference percentage for WVP was 62%, suggesting significant variations in humidity profiles between datasets. The analysis of atmospheric profiles from both the PlanetIQ and COSMIC datasets reveals minor differences across several key parameters (Figure 10). In the pressure comparison, a mean difference of 0.15 mb with a root mean square (RMS) of 0.31 mb was observed. Noteworthy fluctuations were observed, with a minimum difference of \(-0.12\) mb and a maximum difference of 1.39 mb at different altitudes. Similarly, temperature varies, with a mean difference of 0.17 \({}^{\circ}\)C and an RMS of 1.24 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The temperature differences range from a minimum of \(-1.14\)\({}^{\circ}\)C to a maximum of 3.15 \({}^{\circ}\)C. For WVP, the mean diff. is \(-0.04\) mb, with an RMS of 0.12 mb. The fluctuations range from a minimum of \(-0.60\) mb to a maximum of 0.35 mb. Finally, in the case of Refractivity, a mean diff. of \(-0.10\) is observed, with an RMS of 0.57. The differences in Refractivity span from a minimum of \(-2.53\) to a maximum of 2.45. These findings underscore the variations between the PlanetIQ and COSMIC atmospheric profiles, emphasizing the importance of understanding these distinctions for accurate meteorological assessments. Figure 9: Pressure, temperature, WVP, and refractivity profiles for PlanetIQ-COSMIC collocated observation. In agreement with our research outcomes, Ref. [34] illustrated the notable consistency observed in RO climatologies derived from diverse satellites, encompassing CHAMP, FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC, and GRACE-A.