1 / 34

TAMDAR Project – April Boulder Meeting

TAMDAR Project – April Boulder Meeting. Ed Szoke* NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory *Joint collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Assessing TAMDAR data quality Method

kylynn-chen
Télécharger la présentation

TAMDAR Project – April Boulder Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TAMDAR Project – April Boulder Meeting Ed Szoke* NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory *Joint collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

  2. Assessing TAMDAR data quality Method Compare TAMDAR soundings with each other Compare to nearby ACARS soundings (for T) Compare to a “verifying” raob sounding Concentrated on DTW and MSP Also looked at MEM when CLASS soundings were present Overview

  3. A look at some TAMDAR soundings A large variation in quality of this sounding sample Some from MSP, some compared to CIMMS soundings in MEM Example 1: 7 March 05/1200 UTC

  4. Weather on 7 March: NW flow, scattered snow showersat 1100 UTC at MSP

  5. TAMDAR soundings with raob comparison at MSP-sharp inversion While there is quite a bit of variability (possibly the time differences could account for some of this), the sharp inversion is well captured.

  6. TAMDAR soundings with raob comparison at MSP Raob is in green again. This set of soundings is not very good.

  7. Weather on 7 March at MEM:SW low-level flow, scattered showers and thunderstorms at 1400 UTC

  8. TAMDAR soundings with CLASS soundings at Memphis One bad sounding but overall pretty good agreement especially with moisture.

  9. TAMDAR soundings with CLASS soundings at Memphis One bad sounding again, but also more variability in this group. But in terms of RH, the general character of the moisture seems to be captured.

  10. A look at some ACARS soundings Does a sample of ACARS soundings show good agreement or is it more variable like some of the TAMDARs? Example 2: 9 March 05/1200 UTC

  11. Weather on 9 March 05/1200 UTC Area of rain near Memphis

  12. ACARS soundings out of Memphis Very good agreement for this set close in time and space.

  13. Another set of ACARS soundings out of Memphis Good overall agreement for this set close in time and space.

  14. ACARS compared to 2 TAMDAR soundings out of Memphis Decent agreement except for the point around 820 mb for the 1346z sounding.

  15. Good agreement at MSP and DTW where the weather was dry More variability though at MEM where there was some rain in the area. Example 3: 1 April 05/1200 UTC

  16. Weather on 1 April 05/1200 UTC Wet near Memphis, dry MSP and DTW area

  17. ACARS and TAMDAR soundings out of MSP The general structure of the RH below 800 mb is captured in the TAMDAR soundings. Temperature agreement though is not that great.

  18. ACARS and TAMDAR soundings out of MSP Overall pretty good agreement.

  19. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from DTW All the TAMDARs do a very good job of showing the dry layer near 800 mb.

  20. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from DTW This set also resolves the dry layer.

  21. TAMDAR and ACARS soundings soundings at Memphis Rain in the area could be the cause of more disagreement among the soundings, but agreement is good aob 900 mb.

  22. Example 4: 2 April case:more weather than the last example Radar for DTW at 1200 UTC. Detroit at the nw edge of a major storm system to the east.

  23. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from DTW Something goes bad with the 1223z sounding, getting way too warm at 700 mb.

  24. ACARS soundings vs RAOB from DTW Some temperature problems appear to also be found in this set of ACARS soundings.

  25. TAMDAR and ACARS soundings vs RAOB from DTW Quite a bit of spread shown in this set.

  26. End on a good note with good agreement Fair weather at MSP and DTW Example 5: 4 April 05/1200 UTC

  27. Weather on 1 April 05/1200 UTC Wet near Memphis, dry MSP and DTW area

  28. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from MSP Excellent temperature agreement for the 1205z sounding with a distinct low level inversion.

  29. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from MSP Overall good agreement with both temperature and dew point.

  30. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from MSP Same with this set.

  31. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from DTW Good agreement with the DTW raob; key feature here is the dry layer beginning near 800 mb.

  32. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from DTW Good agreement, again the dry layer is well captured.

  33. TAMDAR soundings vs RAOB from DTW Same with this set.

  34. From comparisons since late February… The number of questionable TAMDAR soundings appears to be less than in the early days of the project, likely a result of bad sensors being flagged. Examples demonstrated that the TAMDAR soundings are able to capture distinct dry and moist layers and sharp inversions. Overall, the quality appears in general to be good enough to be an important source of moisture data in the lower part of the atmosphere. Such information is very hard to get with any current sensors. Summary of TAMDAR comparisons

More Related