Ambon TOGA-COARE High-Resolution Sounding Dataset 1.0 Site Information Location: 128.08 Deg E Longitude 3.70 Deg S Latitude Station Elevation: 12 m Typical Launch Times: 00 06 UTC (06 UTC wind only) Dates Available: 2 Nov 1992 - 27 Feb 1993 (scattered missing files) Total Launches Available in `Native Resolution': 0 Total Launches Available in GTS Format Only: 185 2.0 Radiosonde Information Radiosonde Type: ? Radiation Correction Applied?: ? Ground Equipment: ? Windfinding System: ? Windfinding Equipment: ? Resolution of Raw Data: variable (GTS) 3.0 Parameters in Raw Dataset Parameters Units ------------------------------------- Pressure Millibars Altitude Meters or Feet Temperature Deg C Dew Point Deg C Wind Direction Deg Wind Speed Kts ------------------------------------- NOTE: Parameters available depend on the type of GTS message. 4.0 Conversion to OFPS CLASS 4.1 This data was collected from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) GTS archives. 4.2 The GTS data included many errors (typos, etc). When the error made was obvious (transposed numbers, etc), OFPS corrected the error. If there was a single error, that did not have an obvious correction, OFPS removed the data point. When several data points in a row had similar errors, OFPS assumed that the error was due to radiosonde problems and kept the data (but did flag the data). While OFPS has made every effort to clear as many of the problem data points as possible, there may still be many errors. This is especially true for the wind and dew point data with their possible high variability and the wide spacing of data in GTS. OFPS suggests that caution be used in the consideration of this data. 4.3 For those data points that had pressure, temperature, and dew point data but not altitudes, the altitudes were calculated via a version of the hypsometric equation (Holton 1979, Hess 1959, Herzegh 1988). 4.4 The ascension rate was unable to be calculated due to the lack of time data. 4.5 The U and V wind components were calculated based on the wind speed and direction at a level. 4.6 The latitude and longitude position of the radiosonde was unable to be calculated due to the lack of time data. 4.7 Relative humidity values were calculated via the equations from Bolton (1980). 4.8 The sorting of this data was problematic due to the presense of some data points without pressure and others without altitude. Given this, please be aware that all data points may not be in the correct order. 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. For further information on 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: BoM-GTS Project ID: Ambon native resolution soundings. Release Site Type/Site ID: Ambon, IN, 97724 Release Location (lon,lat,alt): 128 4.80'E, 03 42.00'S, 128.08, -3.70, 12.0 UTC Release Time (y,m,d,h,m,s): 1993, 01, 10, 00:00:00 Comment: CAUTION--This data has been derived from BoM GTS messages. / / / / / Nominal Release Time (y,m,d,h,m,s):1993, 01, 10, 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 ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ------- ----- ----- ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 9999.0 1009.0 28.4 25.2 82.8 0.9 -0.3 1.0 290.0 999.0 9999.000 999.000 999.0 999.0 12.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 9999.0 1000.0 27.4 24.4 83.7 0.9 -5.0 5.1 350.0 999.0 9999.000 999.000 999.0 999.0 90.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 9999.0 945.0 22.0 19.4 85.2 9999.0 9999.0 999.0 999.0 999.0 9999.000 999.000 999.0 999.0 99999.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 Usage of GTS Messages The sounding dataset for Ambon was composed entirely of GTS messages. The conversion procedures are described above. 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 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 Ambon include: Biak, Menado, and Ujung Pandang. 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 Ambon. This summary includes all ambon data (i.e. all months and times are included). The format is that on the first line it tells what the statistics relate to (ambo = ambon, 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 ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 1000.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 82 15.9 31.7 52.4 6.5 21.4 000.0 13.5 000.0 001.2 temp 82 64.6 13.4 22.0 0.6 3.3 081.8 1.9 066.7 067.1 dewpt 82 64.6 13.4 22.0 0.6 2.8 018.2 1.6 027.8 041.5 windspd 40 87.5 0.0 12.5 1.1 0.0 000.0 3.1 040.0 057.5 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 975.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 temp 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 950.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 temp 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 925.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 64 15.6 35.9 48.4 6.7 20.9 000.0 13.9 000.0 000.0 temp 64 57.8 7.8 34.4 0.5 3.9 000.0 1.7 054.5 039.1 dewpt 63 50.8 20.6 28.6 0.6 3.2 000.0 1.9 011.1 019.0 windspd 60 85.0 0.0 15.0 2.2 0.0 000.0 7.4 077.8 078.3 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 900.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 temp 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 850.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 61 18.0 34.4 47.5 6.6 25.0 000.0 13.7 000.0 000.0 temp 61 73.8 8.2 18.0 0.5 3.9 000.0 1.6 054.5 036.1 dewpt 61 41.0 26.2 32.8 0.6 3.5 012.5 1.7 015.0 027.9 windspd 61 88.5 0.0 11.5 2.8 0.0 000.0 8.0 071.4 072.1 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 700.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 60 35.0 26.7 38.3 11.2 34.6 000.0 18.8 000.0 001.7 temp 60 65.0 8.3 26.7 0.7 3.5 000.0 1.6 000.0 025.0 dewpt 60 50.0 21.7 28.3 0.8 5.8 084.6 2.5 047.1 053.3 windspd 60 93.3 1.7 5.0 2.8 45.4 100.0 19.2 100.0 061.7 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 500.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 60 65.0 15.0 20.0 15.4 79.9 000.0 27.7 000.0 003.3 temp 60 70.0 11.7 18.3 0.5 2.9 000.0 1.7 009.1 025.0 dewpt 60 41.7 30.0 28.3 2.1 9.1 088.9 3.4 070.6 068.3 windspd 60 90.0 0.0 10.0 2.7 0.0 000.0 10.8 066.7 051.7 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 300.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 59 71.2 11.9 16.9 17.5 119.8 000.0 41.9 000.0 008.5 temp 59 72.9 10.2 16.9 0.5 3.1 000.0 1.5 030.0 032.2 dewpt 59 39.0 37.3 23.7 1.4 7.7 095.5 3.1 085.7 078.0 windspd 58 91.4 0.0 8.6 2.8 0.0 000.0 11.3 060.0 025.9 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 250.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 59 71.2 10.2 18.6 18.7 132.6 000.0 45.2 009.1 018.6 temp 59 71.2 10.2 18.6 0.6 2.8 033.3 1.5 036.4 032.2 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 58 93.1 0.0 6.9 3.5 0.0 000.0 11.4 025.0 041.4 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 200.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 57 73.7 10.5 15.8 21.0 150.1 000.0 54.2 011.1 024.6 temp 57 71.9 8.8 19.3 0.5 3.1 020.0 1.8 045.5 045.6 dewpt 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 100.0 windspd 57 93.0 1.8 5.3 3.9 137.6 000.0 28.9 066.7 043.9 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 150.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 56 67.9 12.5 19.6 20.3 161.7 000.0 61.3 027.3 026.8 temp 56 67.9 14.3 17.9 0.4 3.1 025.0 1.3 040.0 033.9 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 56 85.7 5.4 8.9 5.1 97.3 033.3 20.4 060.0 051.8 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 100.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 54 63.0 14.8 22.2 19.6 156.3 000.0 60.2 050.0 033.3 temp 54 72.2 7.4 20.4 1.1 6.0 025.0 3.4 009.1 024.1 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 53 88.7 1.9 9.4 4.7 23.3 000.0 15.6 060.0 028.3 Stats for ambo ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 70.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 73 57.5 16.4 26.0 20.7 171.2 016.7 74.8 015.8 024.7 temp 73 58.9 8.2 32.9 1.7 8.3 016.7 4.3 020.8 038.4 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 68 83.8 2.9 13.2 4.3 15.6 000.0 17.5 033.3 041.2 13.0 References Barnes, S. L., 1964: A technique for maximizing details in numerical weather map analysis. J. Appl. Meteor., 3, 396-409. Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 171-180. 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. Herzegh, P. H., 1988: Formulation of output parameters for PAM II CMF data. Field Observing Facility, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. Hess, S. L., 1959: Introduction to Theoretical Meteorology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 362 pp. Holton, J.R., 1979: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. Academic Press, 391 pp. 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.