TAMDAR AERIBAGO Validation Experiment (TAVE) - Memphis Wayne Feltz, Erik Olson, John Short, Sarah Bedka, Kristopher Bedka, Tim Wagner, and Scott Cultice University of Wisconsin - Madison SSEC/CIMSS
Jan 22, 2016
TAMDAR AERIBAGO Validation Experiment (TAVE) - Memphis
Wayne Feltz, Erik Olson, John Short, Sarah Bedka, Kristopher Bedka, Tim Wagner, and Scott Cultice
University of Wisconsin - Madison SSEC/CIMSS
TAVE OUTLINE
• TAVE Experiment Description
• TAVE Dataset Overview
• Preliminary Validation Results
• Future Analysis and Deployment
• Preliminary RUC vs Aircraft Validation
TAVE LOGISTICS
Location: Memphis airport at Air National Guard
Dates/Timing: 23 February - 08 March 2005
Weather: Dry, cool, two periods of rainfall, very little in the way of high dewpoint events/convection
Data: Made available in near real-time, netcdf format from anonymous ftp server
Radiosondes - 49 total launches
12 Tail Numbers with TAMDAR instrumentation (excluding the 3 with bad sensors)
Web site: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tamdar/
Memphis Airport Location
Memphis ANG DeploymentMemphis ANG Deployment
Memphis ANG DeploymentMemphis ANG Deployment
AERIBAGO INSTRUMENTATION
• Vaisala DigiCORA III RS-92 GPS Sounding System
• Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)
• GPS Receiver
• VAISALA Surface PTU Station
• VAISALA 25K Ceilometer
• http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/aeribago/
Instrument Summary
• Radiosondes - Vertical temperature and water vapor, Vaisala RS-92 radiosondes, 20 preparation time, 1 1/2 hour flight time, realtime monitoring capability
• Surface Station - Vaisala sensors, one minute, p, t, q, v, u, tested and calibrated for accuracy at SSEC
• AERI - Vertical temperature and water vapor profiles to three kilometers at ten minute resolution within PBL
• GPS - Integrated total water vapor at half hourly time resolution must be at a stationary location for at least ten days
• Vaisala Ceilometer - Cloud base heights every ten seconds
TAVE AERIBAGO SETUP
Vaisala DigiCORA-III ReceiverRS-92SGP Capable
Radiosonde Profile vs TAMDAR
GPS Receiver
Vaisala Surface Station
Vaisala Ceilometer
Atmospheric Emitted RadianceInterferometer (AERI)
AERI Thermodynamic Retrievals
Other Datasets Collected
• TAMDAR/ACARS Profiles from MADIS and converted to netcdf over Memphis
• RUC Analysis Profiles over Memphis
• Satellite, radar, and surface imagery
• GOES pwv, profiles
All Available at:
ftp://ftp.ssec.wisc.edu/validation/exper/tamdar/data/
PreliminaryPreliminaryTAMDAR TAMDAR Thermodynamic Thermodynamic ValidationValidation
TAVE Validation Datasets
Radiosonde Schedule
Saab 340s arrive / depart in the following groups (local time):
7:35 - 7:55 Arrive 9:20 - 9:55 Depart
12:36 - 1:15 Arrive 14:15 - 15:00 Depart
17:25 - 18:00 Arrive 19:10 - 19:50 Depart
TAVE Radiosonde Launch Time Slots:
8:30, 10:15, 14:15, 17:00, and 19:00 Local time
Up to 5 Launches per day
Careful attention was paid to keep the radiosonde out of sun and allowing sensor to acclimate to outside environment for several minutes before launch
Radiosonde Launch Procedure
Radiosonde Ascent Rate
5,000 ft, reached 5 minutes after launch. 1000 ft/min ascent rate.
10,000 ft, reached 12 minutes after launch. 800 ft/min ascent rate.
24,000 ft, reached 30 minutes after launch. 700 ft/min ascent rate.
30,000 ft, reached 43 minutes after launch. 500 ft/min ascent rate.
These balloons are smaller and lighter than the ones the NWS launches at 00Z and 12Z at numerous sites across the US.
Profiles Comparison Examples
Profiles Comparison Examples
Profiles Comparison Examples
Excluded Tail Numbers
Tail numbers: 5580, 5598 - bad relative humidity information
5552 - bad temperature information
Radiosonde vs TAMDAR Trajectories
Dashed - DescendingSolid - AscendingBlack lines - State Boundaries
Profile Examples
Statistics for Ascent/Descent
Temperature
Statistics for Ascent/Descent
Relative Humidity
Statistics for All Matches
Future Validation Improvements
• Validation quality of radiosonde water vapor measurements by correlating with Bago surface sensor and AERI radiance intercomparison
• TAMDAR sensor QC should be looked at with more scrutiny, maybe rh1 or rh2 should be used instead of rh once consensus between TAMDAR sensor indicates good rh1 or rh2 data
• Validation matches should be screened in the vertical as a function of horizontal distance between sensor to help account for horizontal variability of the water vapor
Future Validation ImprovementsContinued
• Temperature from ACARS measurements within +/- 30 minutes should be included on rms/bias plots
• Time criteria can be tightened with more matches from future deployment
• Wind validation using GPS winds from radiosondes vs TAMDAR/ACARS measurements
TAVE Summary
• Preliminary Validation is underway
• TAVE Data Available: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tamdar
• More extensive validation will be presented at Virginia meeting in September
• Next Deployment possible in May or July/August in Memphis
Comparison of TAMDAR and non-TAMDAR with RUC 1 hr forecast
Source statistical data provided by Bill Moninger – FSL
http://acweb.fsl.noaa.gov/ruc_acars/
Data from weekly ‘fit’ statistics fromMid-January - Mid-March 2005
Ralph PetersenCIMSS
Comparison of TAMDAR and non-TAMDAR with RUC 1 hr forecast
Bias Temperature (oC) Standard Deviation
Source statistical data provided by Bill Moninger - FSL
WMO Temperature Requirements for Regional NWP (RMS) - 0.5 oC, Minimum Acceptable 3.0 oC
Data from Mid-January - Mid-March 2005
Comparison of TAMDAR and non-TAMDAR with RUC 1 hr forecast
Bias Speed (m s-1) Standard Deviation
Source statistical data provided by Bill Moninger - FSL
WMO Wind Requirements for Regional NWP (RMS) - 1 m s-1, Minimum Acceptable 5 m s-1
Data from Mid-January - Mid-March 2005
Comparison of TAMDAR and non-TAMDAR with RUC 1 hr forecast
Bias Relative Humidity (%) Standard Deviation
Source statistical data provided by Bill Moninger - FSL
WMO Moisture Requirements for Regional NWP (RMS) - 5%, Minimum Acceptable 20%
Data from Mid-January - Mid-March 2005
Summary of Comparison of TAMDAR and non-TAMDAR with RUC 1 hr forecastEvaluations performed between TAMDAR and all other aircraft
- Need to separate reports from similar parts of atmosphere- Need to view in combination with Rawinsonde Co-Locations- Need to have more Q/C information
- WMO criteria used here to exclude outliers- May have been too conservative
Two data sets show notably different characteristics- Temperature
- More TAMDAR outliers (> WMO Specs) anddifferent (cold) bias
- Wind- More TAMDAR outliers and
Bias ( 3x ) and Standard Deviation larger- Moisture
- No WVSS-II comparison made yet- Bias increases as RH increases- RMS near WMO limits (careful since we are comparing to
model forecast/analysis)
Issue – Who will manage, maintain and distribute TAMDAR Q/C info?- Currently, WMO requires NWS to do this for other aircraft data.