1 / 15

BALLOON DATA VALIDATION DURING MOHAVE 2009

BALLOON DATA VALIDATION DURING MOHAVE 2009. Thierry Leblanc NASA/JPL. Thanks to Dan Walsh and Tony Grigsby (JPL), and to Dale Hurst, Emrys Hall, and , who all made an outstanding contribution to the balloon launch operations. 20 Frost-Point, 58 PTU. BALLOON PROFILES.

kwanita-edwards
Download Presentation

BALLOON DATA VALIDATION DURING MOHAVE 2009

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. BALLOON DATA VALIDATION DURING MOHAVE 2009 Thierry Leblanc NASA/JPL Thanks to Dan Walsh and Tony Grigsby (JPL), and to Dale Hurst, Emrys Hall, and , who all made an outstanding contribution to the balloon launch operations

  2. 20 Frost-Point, 58 PTU BALLOON PROFILES Cryogenic Frost-Point Hygrometers (CFH)14 nighttime launches2 daytime launches (TF027 on 10/18 and TF040 on 10/21) NOAA Frost-Point Hygrometers (NOAA_FPH)4 nighttime launches Vaisala RS92K PTU sondes (JPL)33 nighttime launches8 daytime launches Vaisala RS92-SGP PTU sondes (GSFC)17 nighttime launches(16 valid profiles) Imet-1 PTU sondes (w/ CFH)18 nighttime launches w/ CFH and NOAA-FPH2 daytime launches w/ CFH

  3. Large H2O Variability for z<13 km CFH All launches

  4. Milo. correction: Ok for MOHAVE 2009 Vaisala RS92 Note: drop invariability above 14 km

  5. Now, the problems begin… RS92 vs. iMet PTU RS92 vs iMet-1Not same Press.Not same Temp.

  6. Large biases for individual flights Impact on FP-H2O P,T bias H bias [Dp, dT] >0 dh<0 dH2O<0in negativegradient dH2O>0in positivegradients Dp<0, dT>0 dh>0 effect ondH2O is reversed

  7. Large biases for individual flights Impact on FP-H2O [Dp, dT] <0 dh<0 dH2O<0in negativegradient dH2O>0in positivegradientsbut effect is mitigated

  8. Large biases for individual flights Impact on FP-H2O [Dp, dT] <0 dh<0 dH2O<0in negativegradient dH2O>0in positivegradientsbut effect is mitigated

  9. More flights… Impact on FP-H2O Four flights with similar conditions

  10. More flights… Impact on FP-H2O TitleText 1Text 2

  11. Extracting systematic effect? Impact on FP-H2O 12 flightsshowing similar behavior

  12. Milo. Correc.Further away RS92 correc. vs. CFH Using RS92 [p,T] instead of iMetincreases systematic negative biasbetween RS92-correc. and CFH

  13. Bias is increased but not significantly RS92 correc. vs. CFH Using RS92 [p,T] instead of iMetincreases systematic negative biasbetween RS92-correc. and CFH

  14. Std-Dev >60% Std-Dev >60% All within 10% Title TitleText 1Text 2

  15. Std-Dev ~10% Std-Dev >60% Title Title TitleText 1Text 2

More Related