Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 1 August 25, 2005 RUC – RAOB – TAMDAR SOUNDINGS Ed Szoke* NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory *Joint collaboration with.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

AMS Annual Meeting 2007 – San Antonio 11 th IOAS-AOLS 18 January 2007 IMPACT OF TAMDAR ON THE RUC MODEL: A LOOK INTO SOME OF THE STATISTICS WITH CASE STUDIES.

Advertisements

Jess Charba Fred Samplatsky Phil Shafer Meteorological Development Laboratory National Weather Service, NOAA Updated September 06, 2013 LAMP Convection.

Stratus. Outline  Formation –Moisture trapped under inversion –Contact layer heating of fog –Fog induced stratus –Lake effect stratus/strato cu  Dissipation.

CANSAC Products tour From the perspective of an operational fire-weather Meteorologist.

Robert J Zamora NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences Division Boulder, CO Arizona HMT Soil Moisture Network.

Jordan Bell NASA SPoRT Summer Intern  Background  Goals of Project  Methodology  Analysis of Land Surface Model Results  Severe weather case.

Outline  Introduction  CAPE Description  Parcel Choice  Fat vs Skinny  Other Forms  Conclusion.

21:50 UTC western dryline On the dynamics of drylines Fine-scale vertical structure of drylines during the International H 2 O Project (IHOP) as seen by.

Danielle M. Kozlowski NASA USRP Intern. Background Motivation Forecasting convective weather is a challenge for operational forecasters Current numerical.

An Overview of Environmental Conditions and Forecast Implications of the 3 May 1999 Tornado Outbreak Richard L. Thompson and Roger Edwards Presentation.

Improving Severe Weather Forecasting: Hyperspectral IR Data and Low-level Inversions Justin M. Sieglaff Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite.

Numerical Simulations of Snowpack Augmentation for Drought Mitigation Studies in the Colorado Rocky Mountains William R. Cotton, Ray McAnelly, and Gustavo.

A Comparison of Methods for Calculating Montgomery Streamfunction Using Modern Data Patrick S. Market 1 and Scott M. Rochette 2 1 Dept. of Soil, Env.,

The aim of FASTER (FAst-physics System TEstbed and Research) is to evaluate and improve the parameterizations of fast physics (involving clouds, precipitation,

A Survey of Wyoming King Air and Cloud Radar Observations in the Cumulus Photogrammetric In-Situ and Doppler Observations (CuPIDO) experiment J. Cory Demko.

Climate quality data and datasets from VOS and VOSClim Elizabeth Kent and David Berry National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.

Radar Animation 9:30 AM – 7:00 PM CST November 10, 2006 …Excerpt from Meteorological Overview of the November 10, 2006 Winter Storm… Illustrate value of.

A Generalized Approach to Precip Type Forecasting.

TAMDAR Alaskan data compiled by Ed Szoke NOAA/CIRA/GSD 2007 cases comparing TAMDAR out of Anchorage (ANC) and other Alaska airports nearby RAOB cases Airports.

Use of TAMDAR Data in a Convective Weather Event Saturday, May 21, 2005.

The Arctic Climate Paquita Zuidema, RSMAS/MPO, MSC 118, Feb, 29, 2008.

Upper Air Charts By Tom Collow November 8, Reading Upper Air Charts Temperature (°C) Dewpoint Depression (°C) Height Wind direction and speed (knots)

1 Aircraft Data: Geographic Distribution, Acquisition, Quality Control, and Availability Work at NOAA/ESRL/GSD and elsewhere.

An Analysis of Eta Model Forecast Soundings in Radiation Fog Forecasting Steve Amburn National Weather Service, Tulsa, OK.

IHOP Workshop – Toulouse – June 2004 Multiscale Analyses of Moisture Transport by the Central Plains Low-Level Jet during IHOP Edward I. Tollerud 1, Brian.

Hurricane lecture for KMA Ed Szoke 1 October 20, 2004 Overview of 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season Ed Szoke* NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory Forecast Research.

Week in Review 8/28/13 to 9/4/13 John Cassano. Weather Situation – Strong upper level ridge over central US – Jet stream well north of US – Weak frontal.

Intelligent Use of LAPS By Ed Szoke and Steve Albers 16 December 1999.

Applications of Aircraft Sounding Data In Short-term Convective Forecasting Phillip G. Kurimski* Eugene S. Brusky Jr. National Weather Service Green Bay,

A Comparison of Two Microwave Retrieval Schemes in the Vicinity of Tropical Storms Jack Dostalek Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere,

Detailed Observations of Five African Easterly Waves During NAMMA F. J. Schmidlin (NASA), B. J. Morrison (SSAI), E. T. Northam (SSAI), J. Gerlach (NASA)

AMS 23 rd Conference on Severe Local Storms/2006 – St. Louis Talk November 8, 2006 AN EVALUATION OF TAMDAR SOUNDINGS IN SEVERE WEATHER FORECASTING.

AMB Verification and Quality Control monitoring Efforts involving RAOB, Profiler, Mesonets, Aircraft Bill Moninger, Xue Wei, Susan Sahm, Brian Jamison.

Meteorology of Winter Air Pollution In Fairbanks.

TAMDAR Workshop 2006 – Boulder, Colorado 1 April 13, 2006 UPDATE ON TAMDAR IMPACT ON RUC FORECASTS & RECENT TAMDAR/RAOB COMPARISONS Ed Szoke,* Brian Jamison*,

Verification of Global Ensemble Forecasts Fanglin Yang Yuejian Zhu, Glenn White, John Derber Environmental Modeling Center National Centers for Environmental.

How well can we model air pollution meteorology in the Houston area? Wayne Angevine CIRES / NOAA ESRL Mark Zagar Met. Office of Slovenia Jerome Brioude,

The Ingredients Based Tornado Parameter Matt Onderlinde.

2006(-07)TAMDAR aircraft impact experiments for RUC humidity, temperature and wind forecasts Stan Benjamin, Bill Moninger, Tracy Lorraine Smith, Brian.

Steve Koch National Severe Storms Laboratory Steve Koch National Severe Storms Laboratory WELCOME to the WoF – HiW Workshop of 2014.

Characteristics of Fog/Low Stratus Clouds are composed mainly of liquid water with a low cloud base Cloud layers are highly spatially uniform in both temperature.

AOS 100: Weather and Climate Instructor: Nick Bassill Class TA: Courtney Obergfell.

AMS 22 nd Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/18 th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction – Park City, Utah 1 June 26, 2007 IMPACT.

Ed Szoke 1 April 12, 2005 TAMDAR Project – April Boulder Meeting Ed Szoke* NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory *Joint collaboration with the Cooperative Institute.

Aviation Applications of Automated Aircraft Weather Data Examples from meteorologists in forecast offices Richard Mamrosh National Weather Service Green.

Boundary layer depth verification system at NCEP M. Tsidulko, C. M. Tassone, J. McQueen, G. DiMego, and M. Ek 15th International Symposium for the Advancement.

Layered Water Vapor Quick Guide by NASA / SPoRT and CIRA Why is the Layered Water Vapor Product important? Water vapor is essential for creating clouds,

A JUNE MONSOON? David L. Mitchell 1, Dorothea Ivanova 1 and David Gochis 2 1.Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada 2. National Center for Atmospheric.

HWT Spring Experiment 2011 model comparisons 1 June OK-MO severe storms Very subtle boundaries, really not a lot of surface forcing But lots of storms.

Analysis of Select Data Biases in North America Dr. Bradley Ballish NCEP/NCO/PMB October 2008 JAG/ODAA Meeting “Where America’s Climate and Weather Services.

Page 1© Crown copyright Modelling the stable boundary layer and the role of land surface heterogeneity Anne McCabe, Bob Beare, Andy Brown EMS 2005.

AMS 13 th Conference on Aviation, Range and Aerospace Meteorology – January 2008 – New Orleans, Louisiana 1 January 22, 2008 EFFECT OF TAMDAR ON RUC SHORT-TERM.

STMAS (Aviation Weather Testbed (AWT-2011) case: 22 July 2011 Highlight: Strong storms with a small line move through Chicago (O’Hare Airport) at 15z with.

Assimilation of AIRS SFOV Profiles in the Rapid Refresh Rapid Refresh domain Haidao Lin Ming Hu Steve Weygandt Stan Benjamin Assimilation and Modeling.

VISITview Teletraining Nearcasting Convection using GOES Sounder Data 1 ROBERT M. AUNE AND RALPH PETERSEN NOAA/ASPB/STAR JORDAN GERTH AND SCOTT LINDSTROM.

NWS Forecast Office Preliminary Results The Great Lakes Fleet Experiment January - July 2005 Rich Mamrosh NWS GRB.

Cirrus anvil cumulonimbus T (skewed) LCL (Lifting Condensation Level) LFC (Level of Free Convection) EL (Equilibrium level) p overshooting CAPE Sounding.

PRELIMINARY VALIDATION OF IAPP MOISTURE RETRIEVALS USING DOE ARM MEASUREMENTS Wayne Feltz, Thomas Achtor, Jun Li and Harold Woolf Cooperative Institute.

STMAS Aviation Weather Testbed (AWT-2011) case: 25 July 2011 Highlight: A line of storms over nw NY at 12z is moving to the southeast with potential to.

2004 Developments in Aviation Forecast Guidance from the RUC Stan Benjamin Steve Weygandt NOAA / Forecast Systems Lab NY Courtesy:

Intelligent Use of LAPS By Ed Szoke 16 May 2001.

1 Recent AMDAR (MDCRS/ACARS) Activities at GSD New AMDAR-RUC database that helps evaluate AMDAR data quality Optimization study that suggests data can.

AMS 22 nd Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/18 th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction – Park City, Utah 1 June 26, 2007 IMPACT.

Investigations of Using TAMDAR Soundings in the NCAR Auto-Nowcaster H. Cai, C. Mueller, E. Nelson, and N. Rehak NCAR/RAL.

60 min Nowcasts 60 min Verification Cold Front Regime

A Possible Relationship Between Total Lightning and Non-Supercell Tornadogenesis Ed Szoke1,2, Dan Bikos1, Geoffrey Stano3, Pat Kennedy4, Steve Rutledge4,

Alan F. Srock and Lance F. Bosart

Overview of Deterministic Computer Models

Ulrich Pflüger & Ulrich Damrath

REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.

Presentation transcript:

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 1 August 25, 2005 RUC – RAOB – TAMDAR SOUNDINGS Ed Szoke* NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory *Joint collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 2 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs RAOBs – some observations ● At the time of the last meeting... ● Found lots of variability in the TAMDAR soundings ● Often soundings close in time were not consistent ● Now... ● Much less variability ● Soundings tend to show good consistency ● And generally compare better to nearby raobs

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 3 August 25, 2005 Overview ● Assessing TAMDAR data quality...quick review ● Compare TAMDAR soundings with each other ● Compare to a “verifying” raob sounding ● Concentrated on DTW and MSP and PIA ● Examining impact of TAMDAR on RUC forecasts ● Look at RUC forecast soundings with and without TAMDAR and compare to raobs ● Also compare RUC analyses ● Potential forecast value of TAMDAR soundings ● Consistency and potential usefulness of TAMDAR soundings...a brief case

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 4 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs RAOBs – Weather at 1200 UTC 19 August 05

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 5 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs 1200 UTC 19 August 05 DTW RAOB – flights to ENE

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 6 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs 1200 UTC 19 August 05 DTW RAOB – flights to ENE

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 7 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs 1200 UTC 19 August 05 DTW RAOB – flights to ENE Agreement is not as good but note TAMDARS are heading NW and the raob would have headed to the ene.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 8 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs RAOBs – DTW 1200 UTC 22 August 05 Quite a bit of lower level moisture over the Upper Midwest.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 9 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs DTW RAOB – flights to the SE

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 10 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs DTW RAOB – flights to the ENE

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 11 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs DTW RAOB – flights to the NW Note that the raob heads to the ESE

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 12 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs MSP RAOB – flights to the E Note the good consistency between TAMDARs 2 min apart.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 13 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs MSP RAOB – flights to the E-ENE Not sure about the 1231 UTC TAMDAR flight...

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 14 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR soundings vs MSP RAOB – flights to the S Excellent agreement on the height of the inversion base.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 15 August 25, 2005 Next we will look at impact of TAMDAR on the RUC - Examine RUC with (“dev2”) and without (“dev”) TAMDAR - Using mainly DTW and MSP locations - Look first at RUC analyses and compare to raobs - Then see if impact is seen in the forecasts by looking at mainly 3 and 6 h forecasts and comparing to raobs.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 16 August 25, 2005 RUC analysis soundings vs RAOBs – 18 August 2005 Surface map with radar for 1200 UTC.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 17 August 25, 2005 RUC analysis soundings vs DTW RAOB – 18 August 2005 Comparison of RUC analyses for 1200 UTC with (dev2) and without (dev) TAMDAR. Appears to be a better match to the sounding when the TAMDAR data was included.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 18 August 25, 2005 RUC analysis soundings vs MSP RAOB – 1200 UTC 18 August 05 The same type of example from MSP; could argue that dev2 is a slightly better match to the raob.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 19 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 3 h forecasts. -soundings are different, but dev1 (w/o TAMDAR) may be closer match to raob.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 20 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 6 h forecasts.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 21 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 9 h forecasts. -9 h is rather far into the forecast but note differences do appear between the forecasts...not clear which one is better for this case.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 22 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 19 Aug Comparison of RUC forecast soundings for Detroit at 0000 UTC – 12 h forecasts.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 23 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 23 Aug 05 Quite a bit of low level moisture MI- MN with extensive low clouds over MI.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 24 August 25, 2005 RUC forecast soundings vs RAOBs – 0000 UTC 23 Aug 05 TAMDAR data available for UTC, approximating what was available for the RUC 0000 UTC runs.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 25 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Detroit 0000 UTC raob. RH differences exist between the RUC analyses but dev2 (with TAMDAR) does not look as good as dev1 (RUC analysis without TAMDAR) for this site.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 26 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Minneapolis 0000 UTC raob. This time dev2 (with TAMDAR) looks better at lower levels.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 27 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Davenport Iowa 0000 UTC raob. Dev2 (with TAMDAR) temperature looks better at and above 850 mb.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 28 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Peoria Illinois 0000 UTC raob. No improvement seen for this site, but there are much fewer flights into PIA.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 29 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison of 6h RUC forecasts with the Detroit 0000 UTC raob. Mixed results, down low dev (w/o TAMDAR) looks best with T, but above ~850 mb dev2 (with TAMDAR) closely matches the raob in T and Td.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 30 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the MSP 0000 UTC raob. Less differences in the forecasts.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 31 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Green Bay 0000 UTC raob. Mixed...T better, RH not, for dev2 (with TAMDAR).

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 32 August 25, 2005 RUC 6h forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 23 Aug Comparison with the Peoria 0000 UTC raob. Little difference between the 2 forecasts aob 800 mb, but better RH with dev2 above this level.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 33 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug Quiet weather aloft but still lots of low level moisture, especially eastern WI through MI.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 34 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug TAMDAR flights before 1200 UTC.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 35 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug For Detroit. Not much difference down low, but aob 750 mb dev2 RH better.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 36 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug MSP shown here...much better temperature for dev2 in the lowest 100 mb.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 37 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 23 Aug Not true though at PIA, but again less TAMDAR here.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 38 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 39 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug The same type of example for 12z from MSP; could argue that dev2 is a better analysis.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 40 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for Detroit.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 41 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for MSP

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 42 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts without TAMDAR for Detroit for 0000 UTC 24 Aug 3 and 6 h forecasts for Detroit. Improvement with time around 800 mb but not lower down.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 43 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts with TAMDAR for Detroit for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Dev2 forecasts more consistent.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 44 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts without TAMDAR for MSP at 0000 UTC 24 Aug

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 45 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts with TAMDAR for MSP valid at 0000 UTC 24 Aug

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 46 August 25, 2005 RUC forecasts with and without TAMDAR for 0000 UTC 24 Aug Comparing the two 3-h forecasts. Note the great match from dev2 for lower level T but dev is better for Td.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 47 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 24 Aug Still lots of lower level moisture around.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 48 August 25, 2005 ~TAMDAR availability for the 1200 UTC 24 Aug RUC

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 49 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for Detroit. Much better moisture down low with TAMDAR.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 50 August 25, 2005 RUC analyses with and without TAMDAR for 1200 UTC 24 Aug Analyses for MSP. Dev2 with TAMDAR captures the low level inversion better.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 51 August 25, 2005 Case study of potential forecast value of TAMDAR soundings -rapidly evolving environment in the Dakotas leading to tornadoes

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 52 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 1900 UTC

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 53 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 2100 UTC

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 54 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 2200 UTC

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 55 August 25, 2005 Radar overview – 2300 UTC

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 56 August 25, 2005 TAMDAR availability: area is at the western edge of flights.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 57 August 25, 2005 BIS RAOBs – the day starts with VERY shallow moisture but increasing southerly flow above the surface. A lot happens before the next raob at 0000 UTC to set up a supercell environment - what did TAMDAR show?

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 58 August 25, 2005 ABR RAOB with 1301 and 1326 UTC TAMDARs Note the increase in moisture just after the sounding launch and the increasing low level southerly flow.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 59 August 25, 2005 ABR TAMDARs from 1533 to 1938 UTC. This Aberdeen TAMDAR series of soundings nicely shows the increasing depth of low-level moisture even as the boundary layer warms.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 60 August 25, 2005 GFK TAMDARs from 1705 to 1913 UTC. Grand Forks TAMDAR series of soundings also shows the increasing depth of low-level moisture.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 61 August 25, 2005 GFK CAPE/CIN for TAMDARs from 1705 vs UTC. Considerably less inhibition and more CAPE in just 2 h as shown by the TAMDAR soundings.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 62 August 25, 2005 Environmental variability within the spacing of the raob network Huge amount of variability on this day.

Boulder TAMDAR Meeting - Ed Szoke 63 August 25, 2005 Overall Summary ● TAMDAR quality has improved since our last meeting ● This allows forecasters to have more confidence in using the data ● Showing impact of TAMDAR on RUC forecasts is tricky ● But is fairly clear that one can see the impact on the analyses ● Would like to look more at < 3 h forecasts ● It is easier to find examples of how TAMDAR data can aid operational forecasting and these can be quite dramatic ● Compared with “smaller” effects in NWP models.