P2.12
TAMDAR thermodynamic and dynamic state validation using rawinsonde data from TAVE

- Indicates paper has been withdrawn from meeting
- Indicates an Award Winner
Wednesday, 1 February 2006
TAMDAR thermodynamic and dynamic state validation using rawinsonde data from TAVE
Exhibit Hall A2 (Georgia World Congress Center)
Sarah Bedka, CIMSS/Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; and W. F. Feltz, E. R. Olson, R. A. Petersen, and K. M. Bedka

Poster PDF (150.8 kB)

This paper details the results from the two TAMDAR (Tropospheric Airborne Meteorological Data Report) AERIbago Validation Experiments (TAVE I and II). These experiments were conducted to assess the accuracy of the TAMDAR instruments by comparing the temperature, moisture, and wind profiles to collocated radiosonde data. During TAVE, the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies deployed a mobile research laboratory to the Memphis Air National Guard base, adjacent to the Memphis International Airport. Observations were collected over 27 total days (TAVE-I: 22 February – 8 March, TAVE-II: 16 May – 27 May), and included 95 radiosonde launches. Radiosonde launch times were planned to correspond as closely as possible to TAMDAR aircraft arrival/departure times, without disrupting the normal tower operations. Radiosonde and TAMDAR profiles were matched in time and space for comparison. A ‘match' constituted a TAMDAR flight whose initial reporting time corresponded to the radiosonde launch time to within +/- 30 minutes, and whose distance from the radiosonde was less than 50 km. Data from both ascending and descending flights were included, and data from several non-functioning TAMDAR sensors were discarded. RMS and Bias statistics were calculated for temperature, humidity, and wind speed at common pressure levels between 1000 mb to 540 mb. During TAVE-II, the TAMDAR instruments were in high sampling mode, and therefore reported data at a much higher vertical resolution than during TAVE-I. Statistics were calculated at 17 common pressure levels for TAVE-I, and 37 common pressure levels for TAVE-II. This paper presents the results from these comparisons, and examines the differences between TAVE-I and TAVE-II.