Kupang TOGA-COARE High-Resolution Sounding Dataset 1.0 Site Information Location: 123.67 Deg E Longitude 10.17 Deg S Latitude Station Elevation: 108 m Typical Launch Times: 00 12 UTC Dates Available: 1 Nov 1992 - 28 Feb 1993 (scattered missing files) Total Launches Available in `Native Resolution': 224 Total Launches Available in GTS Format Only: 17 (see item 10.0) 2.0 Radiosonde Information Radiosonde Type: VIZB radiosonde Radiation Correction Applied?: No. Ground Equipment: RD65 Windfinding System: RADIOTHEODOLITE Windfinding Equipment: RD65 Resolution of Raw Data: up to Jan 21: 30 sec after Jan 21: 6 sec 3.0 Parameters in Raw Dataset 3.1 Native Resolution Files Parameters Units -------------------------------------- Time Seconds Altitude Geopotential Meters Pressure Millibars Temperature Deg C Relative Humidity % Dew Point Deg C Azimuth Angle Deg Elevation Angle Deg -------------------------------------- 3.2 BoM GTS Parameters Units ------------------------------------- Pressure Millibars Altitude Meters or Feet Temperature Deg C Dew Point Deg C Wind Direction Deg Wind Speed Kts ------------------------------------- 3.3 ECMWF GTS Parameters Units ------------------------------------- Pressure Pascal Geopotential m^2/s^2 Temperature Deg K Dew point Deg K Wind Direction Deg Wind Speed Kts ------------------------------------- NOTE: Parameters available depend on the type of GTS message. 4.0 Conversion to OFPS CLASS 4.1 These files came from a digitization process based on strip charts. At times the data on the charts becomes noisy, and bad data points can result. OFPS, in keeping with its policy, does not change any of the data, but does flag it as necessary. 4.2 The decoding of soundings using VIZ material requires the calibration of both the temperature and the relative humidity sensors. In most cases, these were available. When the calibration information was not present, other methods were tried. This was the case for 15 of the Kupang soundings. As a replacement, we tested the error produced when trying the extreme calibration values on a number of soundings for which the actual calibration was available and the results were surprisingly good. We found that the errors were no greater than +/- 2 Deg C and the average error was around +/- 1 Deg C. This is within the error range of the sensor. Therefore, when either the temperature or humidity calibration was missing, we used the nominal lock-in values of 14 k-ohms for temperature and 10 k-ohms for humidity. In the extreme parts of some soundings, the departure from truth could be close to +/- 2 Deg C. We estimate that less than 4-5% of temperatures computed this way have errors larger than 1.5 Deg C, with an average of about 1 Deg C. The soundings which used the nominal calibrations are well marked in the headers with warning messages. 4.3 The raw 6 or 30 s vertical resolution altitude, pressure, temperature, relative humidity and dew point were kept without change. 4.4 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 or 30 s level and the previous 6 or 30 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 or 30 s level and it was flagged as missing. 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. 4.6 Slightly different processes were used to compute the winds from the 6 and 30 sec vertical resolution azimuth and elevation angles. In the case of the 6 sec vertical resolution files, for both the azimuth and elevation angles a second order polynomial was fit to the curve over the two minute interval centered on the current data point. 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 below 30 sec were flattened. Finally, smoothed position values are used to derive the wind components. For the 30 sec vertical resolution files, a five point (2 min) binomial smoothing was performed on the azimuth and elevation angles. The newly calculated angles are used to compute the wind components, total wind, and latitude and longitude position of the radiosonde at each 30 sec interval. 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: TOGA-COARE Project ID: Kupang native resolution soundings. Release Site Type/Site ID: Kupang, ID, 97372 Release Location (lon,lat,alt): 123 40.20'E, 10 10.20'S, 123.67, -10.17, 108.0 UTC Release Time (y,m,d,h,m,s): 1992, 11, 01, 00:00:00 / / / / / / 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 ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ------- ----- ----- ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.0 996.4 27.8 16.8 51.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 999.0 123.670 -10.170 999.0 999.0 108.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 60.0 959.4 25.9 18.8 65.0 0.3 -2.3 2.3 352.0 5.6 123.670 -10.172 999.0 999.0 442.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 99.0 120.0 925.8 23.6 15.4 60.0 0.9 -2.2 2.4 339.0 5.2 123.671 -10.173 999.0 999.0 756.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 99.0 10.0 Usage of GTS Messages 10.1 Whenever there were missing soundings in the native resolution dataset received by OFPS, OFPS used the soundings available from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Global Telecommunications System (GTS) archives. In the case of Kupang, 15 (2) soundings that were missing had available BoM (ECMWF) GTS messages. The GTS based soundings are well marked in the header information. 10.2 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). NOTE: This procedure was only applied to the BoM GTS data. This procedure was not conducted for the ECMWF GTS data as OFPS did not have the actual GTS messages. 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. Again, OFPS made NO attempt to clear the problem data points in the ECMWF GTS data, due to the lack of the original GTS messages. Problem data points were, however, flagged during the procedures described later. 10.3 ECMWF would like to pass along the following message: `Please note that although every care was taken in preparing and testing the data, ECMWF cannot guarantee that the data are correct in all circumstances, neither does ECMWF accept any liability whatsoever for any error or omission in the data, or for any loss or damage arising from its use.' 10.4 For ECMWF GTS data only: 10.4.1 Convert pressure from Pa to mb. 10.4.2 Convert Temperature from Deg K to Deg C. 10.4.3 Convert Dew Point from Deg K to Deg C. 10.4.4 Convert wind speed from Kts to m/s. 10.4.5 Convert geopotential to geopotential meters. 10.5 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). 10.6 The ascension rate was unable to be calculated due to the lack of time data. 10.7 The U and V wind components were calculated based on the wind speed and direction at a level. 10.8 The latitude and longitude position of the radiosonde was unable to be calculated due to the lack of time data. 10.9 Relative humidity values were calculated via the equations from Bolton (1980). 10.10 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. 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 Kupang include: Darwin, Gove, 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 Kupang This summary includes all Kupang data (i.e. all months and times are included). The format is that on the first line it tells what the statistics relate to (WRKK = Kupang, 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 WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 1000.0 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 WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 975.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 221 5.4 85.5 9.0 12.4 39.4 000.5 22.9 005.0 001.8 temp 221 55.7 14.5 29.9 0.6 3.0 084.4 1.7 068.2 066.5 dewpt 219 39.7 27.4 32.9 1.0 4.0 091.7 2.2 080.6 079.5 windspd 54 79.6 1.9 18.5 1.7 4.1 000.0 9.1 090.0 051.9 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 950.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 219 5.9 80.4 13.7 11.7 40.0 000.0 26.6 006.7 001.8 temp 219 48.9 17.4 33.8 0.7 3.1 084.2 1.6 081.1 068.5 dewpt 214 43.0 26.6 30.4 1.1 4.9 087.7 2.6 080.0 076.6 windspd 192 82.3 1.6 16.1 2.1 9.0 066.7 6.0 096.8 069.3 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 925.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 222 5.0 78.8 16.2 12.1 40.0 000.0 26.3 005.6 001.8 temp 222 53.2 13.5 33.3 0.6 3.1 073.3 1.6 073.0 059.9 dewpt 218 46.3 19.3 34.4 1.2 6.0 085.7 3.0 078.7 072.9 windspd 202 84.2 1.0 14.9 2.3 4.1 100.0 6.9 090.0 065.3 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 900.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 221 4.5 78.3 17.2 10.7 40.7 000.0 27.3 002.6 002.3 temp 221 48.9 17.2 33.9 0.5 3.0 076.3 1.5 080.0 068.8 dewpt 216 48.6 23.1 28.2 1.4 6.7 080.0 3.2 078.7 069.0 windspd 195 83.6 2.1 14.4 2.6 11.8 075.0 7.5 082.1 066.2 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 850.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 238 6.7 65.5 27.7 10.0 35.6 000.0 26.8 003.0 002.9 temp 238 58.8 13.0 28.2 0.5 3.4 071.0 1.7 076.1 067.6 dewpt 232 53.9 12.5 33.6 1.7 8.3 075.9 4.1 073.1 070.3 windspd 227 83.3 1.3 15.4 2.4 7.3 000.0 7.7 048.6 042.3 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 700.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 234 21.4 42.7 35.9 12.3 41.2 000.0 25.5 001.2 003.8 temp 234 52.6 16.2 31.2 0.6 3.2 097.4 1.7 080.8 073.5 dewpt 231 58.4 11.7 29.9 2.0 10.0 055.6 6.1 044.9 053.7 windspd 210 88.1 1.4 10.5 3.4 72.2 033.3 14.0 072.7 054.3 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 500.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 231 47.2 18.2 34.6 12.1 54.3 000.0 28.2 006.2 016.9 temp 231 52.4 12.1 35.5 0.6 2.9 092.9 1.8 090.2 077.1 dewpt 217 55.3 15.2 29.5 2.9 14.7 048.5 9.0 053.1 053.9 windspd 213 85.0 1.4 13.6 2.8 12.6 000.0 14.5 062.1 048.8 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 300.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 230 66.5 9.1 24.3 14.1 89.5 028.6 39.0 032.1 040.0 temp 230 60.9 9.6 29.6 0.7 3.8 081.8 1.8 080.9 075.7 dewpt 222 58.6 13.1 28.4 2.2 12.3 062.1 6.6 060.3 055.9 windspd 220 82.3 4.1 13.6 2.7 27.7 022.2 8.5 043.3 047.7 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 250.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 230 69.1 8.7 22.2 16.8 138.1 035.0 47.2 047.1 050.4 temp 230 57.8 9.1 33.0 0.8 4.2 076.2 2.0 078.9 073.0 dewpt 211 56.9 17.1 26.1 2.0 10.2 075.0 5.6 067.3 068.7 windspd 214 81.3 2.8 15.9 2.7 18.3 000.0 8.6 044.1 043.0 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 200.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 229 66.4 9.6 24.0 20.2 135.5 036.4 54.3 058.2 056.8 temp 229 61.6 8.7 29.7 0.8 4.4 080.0 2.2 073.5 073.4 dewpt 210 56.7 15.2 28.1 1.8 9.0 075.0 4.4 078.0 074.3 windspd 214 83.6 0.9 15.4 3.2 14.7 000.0 9.5 024.2 042.5 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 150.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 229 57.6 14.0 28.4 20.8 144.3 043.8 61.1 070.8 059.8 temp 229 62.9 10.0 27.1 1.0 5.2 052.2 2.9 061.3 061.6 dewpt 205 60.5 12.2 27.3 1.5 7.0 084.0 4.6 073.2 071.7 windspd 197 86.8 2.5 10.7 3.9 24.1 000.0 11.7 038.1 043.7 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 100.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 226 43.8 22.1 34.1 22.4 172.0 048.0 68.4 062.3 057.5 temp 226 59.3 11.9 28.8 1.3 8.0 018.5 3.7 038.5 049.1 dewpt 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 100.0 windspd 190 85.8 2.6 11.6 4.5 24.3 060.0 10.8 022.7 037.9 Stats for WRKK ALL 12UTC & 00UTC at 70.0 mb | Avg. difference Parameter NOBS %GOOD %BAD %QUEST good bad %+ ques %+ tot%+ alt 215 42.8 29.3 27.9 26.9 170.6 038.1 70.5 068.3 054.4 temp 215 68.4 7.4 24.2 1.5 8.6 043.8 4.8 034.6 047.0 dewpt 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000.0 0.0 000.0 000.0 windspd 175 84.6 1.1 14.3 3.8 294.1 050.0 12.1 068.0 053.1 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.