Pohnpei TOGA-COARE High-Resolution Sounding Dataset 1.0 Site Information Location: 158.2 Deg E Longitude 7.0 Deg N Latitude Station Elevation: 39 m Typical Launch Times: 00 06 12 18 UTC Dates Available: 1 Nov 1992 - 28 Feb 1993 (scattered missing files) Total Launches Available in `Native Resolution': 480 Total Launches Available in GTS Format Only: 0 2.0 Radiosonde Information Radiosonde Type: VIZ Radiation Correction Applied?: No Ground Equipment: Micro-ART Windfinding System: RADIOTHEODOLITE Windfinding Equipment: Micro-ART Resolution of Raw Data: 6 s 3.0 Parameters in Raw Dataset Parameters Units ------------------------------------------- Time Minutes Altitude Geopotential Meters Pressure Millibars Temperature Deg C Relative Humidity % Azimuth Angle Deg Elevation Angle Deg ------------------------------------------- 4.0 Conversion to OFPS CLASS 4.1 The raw 6 s vertical resolution altitude and temperature were kept without change. 4.2 The ascension rate was calculated for each data point (excluding the surface, where it was given a missing value) based on the altitude and time at two levels, the current 6 s level and the previous 6 s level. If any time or altitude values were missing, at either of the levels, the ascension rate was not calculated at the current 6 s level and it was flagged as missing. 4.3 The use of the raw 6-sec resolution elevation and azimuth angle data to derive the winds sometimes led to large oscillations in wind speed, due to the presence of oscillations in the elevation angle data, particularly at low elevation angles (Williams et al. 1993). The general approach to correct this problem was to remove the outlier radiosonde position data before computing the wind components. For both the azimuth and elevation angles from 360 sec to the end of the sounding, a ninth order polynomial was fit to the curve. The residuals were calculated and compared to the observed values. The outliers of the residuals were then removed. Then, for the elevation angle only, a finite Fourier analysis was performed on the residuals. Periods from 90-190 sec were removed and those below 30 sec were flattened. Finally, a 2 min second order polynomial was then fit to the position to derive the U and V wind components. 4.4 OFPS applied two corrections to the Relative Humidity data from the Micro-ART soundings. The first fix was to correct for incorrect fixed resistor values used by the National Weather Service (NWS) in the calculation of the RH. The following fix was suggested by Chuck Wade (NCAR/RAP) (personal communication). The radiosonde takes the hygristor resistance (R) and runs it through a circuit with another fixed resistor (R_f) connected in parallel. The result is the total resistance (R_t), which is a known quantity. The value of R_f that was originally used by the NWS was 1.2E6, but the correct value was 1.0E6. Thus, R was computed incorrectly, causing the derived relative humidities to be too low. In order to correct this, the value of the incorrect value of R, used by the NWS, must be determined using the observed temperature and RH and the equations used in the VIZ algorithm. This was done iteratively by guessing at a value for R, solving for the RH and checking the guessed RH versus the observed RH and then making further adjustments until the guessed and observed RH values were within .05%. This value that was guessed for R was then used to derive the originally transmitted (correct) R_t using 1.2E6 for R_f. Then we use the newly calculated R_t and 1.0E6 for R_f to calculate the new, corrected R. Then the new RH was calculated. The new RH increases 3-4% near saturation, only minimal differences occur at lower humidities. The second fix was to correct for the use by the NWS of incorrect coefficients in the calculation of the RH. The fix was again suggested by Chuck Wade (personal communication). Using the observed temperature and RH, the resistance ratio was rederived by iteration using both the so-termed `1A' and `1B' coefficients. With this calculated resistance ratio, the observed temperature, and using ONLY the `1A' coefficients, the correct RH was calculated. 4.5 Due to CLASS format constraints, Dew Points less than -99.9 Deg C were given a value of -99.9 Deg C and were flagged as being estimated. 5.0 Automatic Quality Control Procedures Internal quality control procedures were applied to each sounding individually. These checks included two general types: `Reasonable limit' checks on all parameters and `Rate-of-Change' checks on pressure, temperature, and ascension rate. These checks led to the development of automatically generated quality control flags in the OFPS CLASS format file. Also, files were generated that contain descriptions of the problems found in each sounding. Due to the relative high frequency of this dataset (6 s) and the noise often found above 100 mb, the error messages developed by the routine in its basic state became very large. In order to cut down on the large number of error messages and still flag the major problem areas, a slightly different version of the routine was used than is described in the documentation. The checks are all the same, however, rather than check each data point versus the previous data point, we used 30 sec averaging intervals at pressure levels above 100 mb. This allowed for much fewer error messages, while still capturing the problem areas. Below 100 mb the routine was unchanged. For further information on the more general version of the OFPS automatic quality control procedures used for the TOGA-COARE project see Loehrer et al (1996). 6.0 Visual Quality Control Procedures Each sounding was then visually examined for problems that are not able to be captured via the automatic checks described in item 5.0 above. These problems typically included oddities in the dew point and wind profiles. These two parameters can be highly variable, and hence, the automatic checking is more difficult. The visual checking procedure has two main purposes: First, as a check on the results provided by the automatic checks, and second, as a more stringent check on the more variable parameters. For further information on this procedure, see Loehrer et al (1996). 7.0 Spatial Quality Control Procedures Basic statistics are generated indicating whether a given station performed consistently with respect to its neighbors and the network as a whole. The first set of statistics are level-by-level checks versus neighboring stations. The neighbors are those stations in a constricted latitude band. The general methodology used by OFPS is a simple distance weighted averaging scheme comparing the observed values to those expected by the averaging scheme. Tests are applied to altitude, temperature, dew point, wind speed and direction at 14 standard pressure levels. The second set of statistics are level-by-level checks versus network-wide averages. For these all of the data from the network at a particular level and time is averaged and each site is compared to the average. The summary statistics for the neighboring station checks are provided in section 12.0 of this document. Also provided is more detail on the neighboring check procedure. The summary statistics for the network-wide checks are available on-line along with supporting documentation. 8.0 Derived Sounding Parameters The NCAR SUDS (System for User-editing and Display of Soundings; Burghart 1993) software was used to calculate common wind, thermodynamic and stability parameters using the procedures of Weisman and Klemp (1982). Any data points flagged as BAD by the automatic or visual checks are not used in the calculation of these parameters. These parameters will be online, with a separate file for each sounding. The parameters calculated by this routine include: SUDS Derived Parameters ---------------------------------------------- Surface Potential Temperature Surface Virtual Potential Temperature Surface Mixing Ratio 500 mb Potential Temperature 500 mb Virtual Temperature 500 mb Virtual Potential Temperature Lifted Condensation Level (LCL) Lifted Index Level of Free Convection (LFC) Positive Area Below the LFC Negative Area Below the LFC Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) Negative Area Above the LFC Shear over the Lowest 6 km Bulk Richardson Number (Ri) Mean Layer Vector Wind between 1000 and 700 mb ---------------------------------------------- 9.0 JOSS CLASS Format (ASCII text) Description 9.1 Header records The header records (15 total records) contain data type, project ID, site ID, site location, actual release time, nominal release time, and possibly other specialized information. The first five header lines contain information identifying the sounding, and have a rigidly defined form. The following 6 header lines are used for auxiliary information and comments about the sounding, and they vary significantly from data set to data set. The next line (line 12) contains the Nominal date and time of the release. The last 3 header records contain header information for the data columns. Line 13 holds the field names, line 14 the field units, and line 15 contains dashes ('-' characters) delineating the extent of the field. The six standard header lines are as follows: Line Label (fixed to 35 char in length) Contents 1 Data Type: Description of type and resolution of data. 2 Project ID: ID of weather project. 3 Launch Site Type/Site ID: Description of launch site. 4 Launch Location (lon,lat,alt): Position of launch site in format described below. 5 UTC Launch Time: Time of release, in format: yyyy, mm, dd, hh:mm:ss 12 UTC Nominal Launch Time: Nominal release time. The launch site type/site ID has the format: site ID (three or four letter code), the full site name, the country code and the WMO code for the site. The release location is given as: lon (deg min), lat (deg min), lon (dec. deg), lat (dec. deg), alt (m) Longitude in deg min is in the format: ddd mm.mm'W where ddd is the number of degrees from True North (with leading zeros if necessary), mm.mm is the decimal number of minutes, and W represents W or E for west or east longitude, respectively. Latitude has the same format as longitude, except there are only two digits for degrees and N or S for north/south latitude. The decimal equivalent of longitude and latitude and station elevation follow. The six non-standard header lines may contain any label and contents. The label is fixed to 35 characters to match the standard header lines. Sample header records are provided in the sample data file later in this section. 9.2 Data records The data records each contain time from release, pressure, temperature, dew point, relative humidity, U and V wind components, wind speed and direction, ascent rate, balloon position data, altitude, and quality control flags (see QC code description). Each data line contains 21 fields, separated by spaces, with a total width of 130 characters. The data are right-justified within the fields. All fields have one decimal place of precision, with the exception of latitude and longitude, which have three decimal places of precision. The contents and sizes of the 21 fields that appear in each data record are as follows: Field Format Missing No. Width Parameter Units Value ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 6 F6.1 Time Seconds 9999.0 2 6 F6.1 Pressure Millibars 9999.0 3 5 F5.1 Dry-bulb Temperature Degrees C 999.0 4 5 F5.1 Dew Point Temperature Degrees C 999.0 5 5 F5.1 Relative Humidity Percent 999.0 6 6 F6.1 U Wind Component Meters/Second 9999.0 7 6 F6.1 V Wind Component Meters/Second 9999.0 8 5 F5.1 Wind Speed Meters/Second 999.0 9 5 F5.1 Wind Direction Degrees 999.0 10 5 F5.1 Ascension Rate Meters/Second 999.0 11 8 F8.3 Longitude Degrees 9999.0 12 7 F7.3 Latitude Degrees 999.0 13 5 F5.1 Variable (see below) 999.0 14 5 F5.1 Variable (see below) 999.0 15 7 F7.1 Altitude Meters 99999.0 16 4 F4.1 QC flag for Pressure Code (see below) 99.0 17 4 F4.1 QC flag for Temperature Code (see below) 99.0 18 4 F4.1 QC flag for Humidity Code (see below) 99.0 19 4 F4.1 QC flag for U Component Code (see below) 99.0 20 4 F4.1 QC flag for V Component Code (see below) 99.0 21 4 F4.1 QC flag for Ascension Rate Code (see below) 99.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Fields 13 and 14 are `variable' because depending on the sounding system the variables used in these positions can vary. Fields 16 through 21 contain the Quality Control information (flags) generated locally at JOSS. These flags are based on the automated or visual checks made. The JOSS QC flags are as follows: Code Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 99.0 Unchecked (QC information is `missing.') (`UNCHECKED') 1.0 Checked, datum seems physically reasonable. (`GOOD') 2.0 Checked, datum seems questionable on physical basis. (`MAYBE') 3.0 Checked, datum seems to be in error. (`BAD') 4.0 Checked, datum is interpolated. (`ESTIMATED') 9.0 Checked, datum was missing in original file. (`MISSING') ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.3 Sample data The following is a sample portion of a JOSS CLASS format file including header records. The data portion is much longer than 80 characters and, therefore, wraps around to a second line. Data Type: NWS Project ID: Pohnpei native resolution soundings. Release Site Type/Site ID: Pohnpei, KA, 91348 Release Location (lon,lat,alt): 158 12.00'E, 07 0.00'N, 158.20, 7.00, 39.0 UTC Release Time (y,m,d,h,m,s): 1992, 10, 31, 23:12:00 Ascension No: 1618 / / / / / Nominal Release Time (y,m,d,h,m,s):1992, 11, 01, 00:00:00 Time Press Temp Dewpt RH Uwind Vwind Wspd Dir dZ Lon Lat Elev Azim Alt Qp Qt Qh Qu Qv Qdz sec mb C C % m/s m/s m/s deg m/s deg deg deg deg m code code code code code code ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ------- ----- ----- ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.0 1003.0 26.7 23.6 83.0 1.8 3.1 3.6 210.0 999.0 158.200 7.000 999.0 999.0 39.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 6.0 1000.5 26.8 23.6 82.6 9999.0 9999.0 999.0 999.0 3.7 9999.000 999.000 999.0 999.0 61.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 9.0 99.0 12.0 998.1 26.5 23.3 82.5 9999.0 9999.0 999.0 999.0 3.5 9999.000 999.000 999.0 999.0 82.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 9.0 99.0 10.0 Usage of GTS Messages No GTS messages were available for the missing soundings. 11.0 Dataset Availability Datasets Available Online ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Controlled Data File in Native Resolution (available in Bufr, EBufr, and OFPS QCF (ASCII) formats) Statistics generated from the Horizontal Checks (see item 7.0 above) Derived Sounding Parameters (see item 8.0 above) Interpolated 5 mb Vertical Resolution Files (see item 9.0 above) Site-by-site processing and QC documentation (including special spatial QC and general QC documents) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Datasets Available Offline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Non-Quality Controlled, Raw Format File in Native Resolution Automatically generated Error Files (see item 5.0 above) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 Dataset Remarks 12.1 Low-Level Humidity Problem There is an occasional problem in the low-level humidity data at Pohnpei. All of the Micronesian Micro-ART sounding sites in TOGA COARE (Chuuk, Guam, Koror, Majuro, Pohnpei, and Yap) occasionally had very low surface dew point values. This typically occurred in the nighttime soundings (12 and 18 UTC), although it also occurred during some daytime soundings. OFPS applied no corrections to the data. 12.2 Neighboring Station Spatial QC Statistics The neighboring station spatial QC checks were the first of a two part OFPS spatial QC procedure. The second part was a network-wide average check for which some of the output is available elsewhere online via CODIAC. The first step in the spatial QC process was the generation of temperature, dew point, altitude, and wind speed values at each of 14 mandatory pressure levels for each of the soundings (excluding the following release locations; Dropsondes, NOAA P-3 and NCAR Electra flight level data due to the variable release locations; Davao, Kanton, R/V Keifu-Maru, and R/V Natsushima due to a lack of sufficient data; and Hong Kong due to its remote location. The pressure levels used were 1000, 975, 950, 925, 900, 850, 700, 500, 300, 250, 200, 150, 100, and 70 hPa. The constant pressure level data were generated by finding the two data points nearest to the desired pressure level (one higher, one lower) and interpolating to the desired pressure level. For data points to be used in the interpolation, they had to be within a limited distance of the desired pressure level. If there was only one (excepting the case of the presence of the exact pressure level), or no acceptable data point(s), that pressure level was considered missing in any further processing. This process was conducted during the IOP (November 1992 to February 1993) at 00 and 12 UTC. During the remainder of the EMP (July 1992 to June 1993) and at the 06 and 18 UTC release times, there was not enough data to allow adequate spatial QC processing. The next step was the level-by-level check of each station with its neighbors. The neighboring stations used for comparison with Pohnpei include: Chuuk, Kapingamarangi, Kwajalein, and Majuro. The first step was to use the constant pressure level data to calculate a standard deviation for each parameter (altitude, temperature, dew point, and wind speed) for each level and time at each site. This was done via a calculation of the standard deviation for each parameter based on a 15-day moving window, at each time, level, and station individually, centered on the day in question. The next step was the calculation of the "expected" value of each of the parameters at each level for each time based on the values for the parameters at the neighboring stations. Each of the neighboring stations was weighted by 1/d where d is the distance between the station and the neighboring station. The equation used is similar to that of Barnes (1964) in his Eqn. (5). At this point the "expected" value was compared to the observed value at that level and time at the station. The comparison parameter was the standard deviation value calculated for each parameter at each level and time as described above. If the difference between the observed value and the expected value was less than the standard deviation, the parameter at that level and time was reported as "good". If the difference was between the standard deviation and twice the standard deviation, the parameter at that level and time was reported as "questionable". If the difference was greater than twice the standard deviation, the parameter at that level and time was reported as "bad". The results from this processing were output in a set of files that listed results by site at each pressure level and time (00 and 12 UTC). What follows is the summary output for Pohnpei. This summary includes all Pohnpei data (i.e. all months and times are included). The format is that on the first line it tells what the statistics relate to (ptpn = Pohnpei, ALL = all four months of the IOP is included, 12UTC & 00 UTC = both 00 and 12 UTC data are included, 1000.0 mb = statistics for data at 1000 mb). The first column gives the parameter. The second column gives the number of valid observations available for each parameter at that pressure level. The third, fourth, and fifth columns give the percentage of total observations that were judged by this procedure to be "good", "bad", and "questionable" respectively. The sixth column (headed "good") provides the average difference between the observed and expected values for those values judged to be "good". Column seven ("bad") and column nine ("ques") provide the same information for the "bad" and "questionable" values. Columns eight and ten (%+) provide the percentage of "bad" (column eight) or "questionable" (column ten) values that had the observed value higher than the expected value. These are the values that had a positive bias relative to the neighboring values. Finally, column 11 (tot%+) gives the percentage of all parameter values at that pressure level that had a positive bias relative to the neighboring values regardless of the flag given to the value. Then this information is simply provided for each of the 13 other pressure levels in turn, starting at 1000 hPa and ending at 70 hPa. The flags in this spatial checking procedure were not transferred back to the results of the previous QC processing steps (i.e. the flags within the QCF files were not changed by this procedure). Also, please note that this information only relates the values reported at this station relative to its neighbors. The actual problems could be with this station, any one or more of its neighbors, ora combination thereof. So this dataset is not meant to be taken entirely "as is". It needs to be compared with results from the network-wide checks, as well as the other QC results to achieve a more complete picture. Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 1000.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 239 47.3 7.1 45.6 7.1 16.4 005.9 13.6 000.0 004.2 temp 239 75.3 8.4 16.3 0.4 2.8 005.0 1.5 043.6 049.8 dewpt 239 62.3 5.9 31.8 0.5 3.0 092.9 1.7 068.4 066.9 windspd 49 77.6 2.0 20.4 2.1 6.9 000.0 4.9 070.0 053.1 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 975.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 239 46.4 7.5 46.0 6.9 19.2 005.6 13.1 000.0 003.8 temp 239 86.6 2.1 11.3 0.4 2.7 000.0 1.3 051.9 059.0 dewpt 239 59.4 6.3 34.3 0.5 2.8 080.0 1.5 072.0 066.1 windspd 207 94.2 1.0 4.8 2.1 7.8 000.0 5.5 010.0 038.6 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 950.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 239 46.0 7.9 46.0 6.6 18.4 005.3 12.8 000.0 003.3 temp 239 92.5 1.3 6.3 0.4 2.4 000.0 1.3 046.7 051.9 dewpt 239 48.5 13.4 38.1 0.6 2.8 084.4 1.5 086.8 083.3 windspd 223 94.2 0.4 5.4 1.9 8.6 000.0 6.1 041.7 048.4 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 925.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 240 50.4 7.5 42.1 6.8 22.3 005.6 12.8 000.0 003.3 temp 240 85.8 0.0 14.2 0.4 0.0 000.0 1.3 026.5 038.3 dewpt 240 44.2 21.2 34.6 0.6 2.9 092.2 1.7 090.4 082.1 windspd 231 95.2 0.0 4.8 2.1 0.0 000.0 6.4 072.7 055.4 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 900.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 240 50.4 7.9 41.7 6.8 20.9 005.3 12.9 000.0 003.3 temp 240 75.4 2.1 22.5 0.5 2.8 060.0 1.4 022.2 035.8 dewpt 240 53.8 16.7 29.6 0.9 4.0 080.0 2.5 076.1 073.8 windspd 230 93.5 0.0 6.5 2.1 0.0 000.0 7.4 080.0 061.3 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 850.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 240 46.2 6.7 47.1 6.8 20.5 000.0 11.9 000.9 003.3 temp 240 67.9 7.1 25.0 0.5 2.7 064.7 1.6 038.3 047.1 dewpt 240 65.0 12.1 22.9 1.7 8.1 058.6 4.0 067.3 065.4 windspd 231 93.5 0.0 6.5 2.4 0.0 000.0 7.8 086.7 064.9 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 700.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 240 57.9 11.7 30.4 5.0 19.5 000.0 12.4 002.7 010.4 temp 240 67.1 3.8 29.2 0.5 2.5 055.6 1.5 061.4 052.9 dewpt 240 70.4 9.2 20.4 4.8 26.4 045.5 10.9 051.0 058.8 windspd 235 93.6 0.0 6.4 2.3 0.0 000.0 8.9 073.3 052.3 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 500.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 238 68.9 8.8 22.3 5.1 27.1 009.5 11.8 011.3 028.2 temp 238 74.4 2.9 22.7 0.5 3.7 100.0 1.3 066.7 066.0 dewpt 238 72.3 9.7 18.1 5.9 36.8 021.7 17.1 041.9 054.2 windspd 237 96.6 0.0 3.4 2.6 0.0 000.0 7.2 075.0 065.4 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 300.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 237 71.3 5.1 23.6 7.1 45.9 041.7 18.3 051.8 053.2 temp 237 80.2 2.5 17.3 0.5 3.6 083.3 1.5 065.9 065.4 dewpt 237 70.9 9.3 19.8 3.5 21.0 031.8 8.0 051.1 050.2 windspd 236 94.1 0.4 5.5 2.6 20.5 100.0 7.2 069.2 063.6 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 250.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 237 71.3 6.8 21.9 8.5 52.6 050.0 21.3 069.2 058.2 temp 237 75.1 3.8 21.1 0.4 3.9 100.0 1.4 078.0 066.2 dewpt 237 68.8 8.0 23.2 2.2 14.4 031.6 5.7 058.2 054.0 windspd 237 96.6 0.0 3.4 2.8 0.0 000.0 9.0 062.5 052.7 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 200.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 237 70.9 6.8 22.4 10.6 69.1 062.5 28.1 071.7 064.1 temp 237 73.8 4.2 21.9 0.5 4.3 090.0 1.4 071.2 064.6 dewpt 237 70.0 8.9 21.1 1.3 7.4 042.9 4.0 050.0 051.5 windspd 237 96.2 0.0 3.8 3.0 0.0 000.0 12.0 066.7 049.4 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 150.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 237 67.9 6.3 25.7 13.8 96.0 073.3 37.0 073.8 067.5 temp 237 71.3 6.3 22.4 0.6 4.0 086.7 1.6 075.5 068.4 dewpt 237 67.5 7.2 25.3 0.9 5.2 029.4 2.5 036.7 043.0 windspd 237 97.0 0.0 3.0 3.4 0.0 000.0 11.3 042.9 050.6 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 100.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 215 61.9 11.6 26.5 15.3 95.3 076.0 43.2 078.9 067.9 temp 215 76.3 6.5 17.2 0.9 5.3 071.4 3.0 059.5 057.7 dewpt 215 67.0 7.4 25.6 1.0 5.9 043.8 2.9 056.4 051.2 windspd 213 96.7 0.0 3.3 4.0 0.0 000.0 11.5 085.7 052.1 Stats for ptpn ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 70.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 191 59.7 14.7 25.7 13.4 80.6 085.7 39.0 081.6 068.6 temp 191 73.8 6.3 19.9 1.3 6.9 016.7 3.8 047.4 048.2 dewpt 190 64.2 7.9 27.9 1.4 6.9 040.0 4.0 047.2 052.1 windspd 190 98.4 0.0 1.6 2.7 0.0 000.0 5.2 033.3 055.3 13.0 References Barnes, S. L., 1964: A technique for maximizing details in numerical weather map analysis. J. Appl. Meteor., 3, 396-409. Burghart, C., 1993: SUDS: The system for user-editing and display of soundings. Research Data Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. Cole, H., 1993: The TOGA-COARE ISS radiosonde temperature and humidity sensor errors. Surface and Sounding Systems Facility, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. Loehrer, S. M., T. A. Edmands, and J. A. Moore, 1996: TOGA COARE upper air sounding data archive: development and quality control procedures. Bull Amer Meteor Soc, 77, 2651-2671. Weisman, M.L., and J.B. Klemp, 1982: The dependence of numerically simulated convective storms on vertical wind shear and buoyancy. Mon. Wea. Rev., 110, 504-520. Williams, S.F., C.G. Wade, and C. Morel, 1993: A comparison of high resolution radiosonde winds: 6-second Micro-ART winds versus 10-second CLASS LORAN winds. Preprints, Eighth Symposium on Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Anaheim, California, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 60-65.