{"id":64,"date":"2012-05-17T19:59:00","date_gmt":"2012-05-18T00:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/2012\/05\/moisture-bias\/"},"modified":"2018-02-23T09:59:02","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T15:59:02","slug":"moisture-bias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/2012\/05\/moisture-bias\/","title":{"rendered":"Moisture bias?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>So after much discussion today about moisture there is accumulating evidence. Here is a comparison between the MWR on the roof (1.6cm at 00 UTC 5\/17 and 2cm at 00 UTC 5\/18) , the IPW from the GPS system (gpsmet.noaa.gov), and the radiosonde launch from Norman.<br \/>\nGPS:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/31979pwv.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-464\" src=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/31979pwv.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"756\" height=\"324\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Here is the sounding:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/OUN.gif\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-medium wp-image-465\" src=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/OUN-800x615.gif\" alt=\"OUN\" width=\"800\" height=\"615\" srcset=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/OUN-800x615.gif 800w, https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/OUN-768x590.gif 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 100vw, (max-width: 1200px) 60vw, 720px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Note the PW is 0.5&#8243; with a characteristic decrease immediately off the surface. Just after this time the dew point at the NWC increased from 53 to 55 in the hour after release.<\/p>\n<p>Below is the MWR PW time series with the last vertical dotted line at the right being 0000 UTC on 5\/18 (the beginning of the chart is 5\/17 at 00 UTC):<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/Snapshot-2012-05-17-20-09-38.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-467\" src=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/Snapshot-2012-05-17-20-09-38.jpg\" alt=\"Snapshot 2012-05-17 20-09-38\" width=\"655\" height=\"125\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The MWR agrees well with the GPS system and the MWR is fresh off a calibration. I have no idea what would cause this discrepancy with the radiosonde data but clearly something is amiss.<\/p>\n<p>Let me back up to DVN on the 16th at 0000 UTC for a counter example:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/DVN.gif\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-medium wp-image-468\" src=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/DVN-800x615.gif\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"615\" srcset=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/DVN-800x615.gif 800w, https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/DVN-768x590.gif 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 100vw, (max-width: 1200px) 60vw, 720px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>And now the corresponding GPS data from Rock Island:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/22149pwv.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-469\" src=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2012\/05\/22149pwv.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"756\" height=\"324\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Note the close correspondence for a few balloon launches; specifically at 5\/16 00 UTC! Yet that decrease above the surface looks suspect. It is possible the cloud layer above 700 mb is laying a role but what I don&#8217;t think we can diagnose.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>So after much discussion today about moisture there is accumulating evidence. Here is a comparison between the MWR on the roof (1.6cm at 00 UTC 5\/17 and 2cm at 00&#8230; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/2012\/05\/moisture-bias\/\" class=\"more-link\">Read more \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":108,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/108"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":470,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64\/revisions\/470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/efp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}