U,S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENATIONA.A/ OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

.NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE. NATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL CENTER

OFFICE NOTE 244

Evaluation of VAS Sounding Data for Two April 1981 Cases:Part 1 of 2

Edward O'LenicDevelopment Division

SEPTEMBER 1981

This is an unreviewed manuscript, primarilyintended for informal exchange of informationamong NMC staff members.

Introduction

This note presents the results of a preliminary evaluation of VAS

(VISSR Atmospheric Sounder) data for two cases, 12 GMT 14 April and 12

GMT 15 April 1981, hereafter referred to as Cases A and B, respectively.

Section 1 presents discussions of both the synoptic conditions during

these cases, and the results of comparing VAS temperature soundings with

those from radiosondes. Section 2 discusses the differences between

layer thicknesses derived from VAS and those derived from various NMC

analysis and forecast systems. Finally, section 3 presents LFM analyses

made with and without VAS data.

The soundings for Cases A and B were made in the dwell sounding (DS)

mode of the VAS radiometer (Smith, 1981). Table 1 summarizes the charac-

teristics of the VAS radiometer in the DS mode.

TABLE 1. VAS instrument characteristics.

E'~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~Inflight single Typical Typical sounding

Spectral Central Central Weighting function Absorbing sample noise spin radiance noise2

channel wavelength (m) wavenumber(cm-1) peak (mb) constituent (rnWm-Zsr - t cm) budget' (mWm- 2 sr' Srcm)

i 14.71 ' '' 679.9 . 40 CO2 4.125 2 0.583

2 14.45 : 691.90 70 CO2 2.525 4 0.253

3 . 14.23 702.89 150 CO 2 1.763 7 0.133

4 13.99 714.85 450 CO 2 1.488 7 0.1125 . E13.31 751.37 950 CO2 1.131 4 0.113

6 4.52 2214.35 850 CO! 0.028 7 0.002

7 12.66 789.89 . surface H230. 1.069 3 0.123

8 11.24 889.52 surface window .119 0. 024

9 7.25 1379.69 600 H2 0 1.225 9 0.082

10 6.73 1486.33 400 H20 0.306 2 0.043

11 4.44 2254.28 500 CO2 0.026 7 0.002

12 3.94 .2538.07 surface Window 0.007 I 0.001

'Number of spins sensed by the same detector with filter and mirror positions fixed.2 After averaging 25 samples in one sounding area.

After Smith (10-981)

The individual soundings are selected by a human operator and processed

by the method mentioned in Smith et al. (1981), and Smith (1981), at the

Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS),

Madison, Wisconsin. All the soundings for Cases A and B were cloud-free.

The first guess is the 12-hour forecast from the National Meteorological

Center (NMC) limited fine mesh (LFM) model (designated FM12, for fine

mesh 12-hour forecast) verifying at VAS observation time. Further, CIMSS

uses the 1000 millibar FM12 height field as the reference or "anchoring

level" from which to build soundings, and to provide the 1000 mb temper-

ature for all VAS soundings over water (Kit Hayden, CIMSS, personal

communication).

1. Synoptic Conditions and Comparison of VAS Soundings with Observations.O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~During the period 13-15 April 1981 a cyclone system moved eastward

across the eastern North Pacific at an average speed of about 15 knots.A large-scale upper-air trough accompanying this system was situated atabout 145°W, and a ridge lay near 125°W. Satellite images (figures la-le)clearly show that the cyclone was accompanied by a cold front, and that aconsiderable amount of dry air had penetrated the center of the storm.Between about 00 GMT 14 April and 12 GMT 15 April (figures lb-le) a disturb-ance moved northward along the front. Analyses of surface ship reports(figures 2 and 3) indicate that this region is the location of a surfacepressure trough and wind-shift line. The low pressure center moves rapidlynortheastward by 12 GMT 15 April, leaving behind it a low pressure trough(figure 3).

VAS temperature and moisture soundings were compared with coastalradiosondes, and with soundings constructed from LFM forecast fields.Proximate soundings were plotted on skew-T log-P diagrams and visuallycompared (Appendix 1). In five out of seven instances where a radiosondeprofile displays a low-level temperature inversion, the VAS profilecontains a strikingly similar feature. Likewise, in all seven comparisonsin Appendix 1 the VAS soundings locate the tropopause with fair accuracy.The LFM temperature profiles (not shown), while similar to those of VASand radiosondes, especially at the tropopause, contain no strong low-level inversions. Thus, while the resemblance of the profiles at thetropopause might be attributed to the influence of the FM12 first guess,this cannot be the case in the 1000-850 mb layer. The explanation forthe existence of these features probably rests with the choice of the1000 mb temperature in the VAS retrieval system. For soundings over theocean, the FM12 1000 mb temperature is used, while for soundings overland, VAS uses either the Service A data when available, or VAS radiancedata (Kit Hayden, personal communication). Thus, those VAS soundings inAppendix A containing inversions very likely fall into the latter category.Please note therefore, that the VAS soundings shown in Appendix 1 are nottypical of those comprising the bulk of the data in the cases underconsideration.

Appendix 2 contains VAS soundings over the ocean at the locationshown in figure A. All the VAS soundings analyzed statistically inSection 2 are of this type. They share the distinction of having their1000 mb temperature assigned from the LFM FM12 first guess. This factmay be the reason that the Case A soundings shown in Appendix 2 allexhibit marginally stable or unstable lapse rates in their lowest layer,while soundings for Case B all bear stable lowest layers. It is alsopossible that these features owe their existence to a poor first guess inCase A. All the oceanic profiles shown are smoother, and have less well-defined tropopauses than those shown in Appendix A.

2. Comparison of VAS Thicknesses with NMC Analysis and Forecast Thicknesses.

VAS thicknesses were compared with thicknesses calculated from 1) theLFM analysis (FMANL), 2) the LFM 12-hour forecast (FM12) valid at thetime of the VAS observations, 3) the NMC spectral global 12-hour forecast

11:15 13AiP81 36Ai-Z 0006-1640 FULLI I , , I I I I I I

Figure la. Full disc infrared satellite image, 1115 GMT 13 April 1981.

.2245 13AP81 36Ai-4 00* oo101 19111 WC21

Visual satellite image, 2245 GMT 13 April 1981.

I

Figure lb .

w _ .... ~1- l l --~ - , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - -,- - - _ - - , - . . . S .- .. .- . . - . _ . - , ......__._.

1 11:15 14AP81 . .36-Z 0. 06-1640 FULLI I I I I I I I I I I I I I

½ \ 'KIaik

Figure lc. Full disc infrared satellite image, 1115 GMT 14 April 1981.

?2245 14fiPs1 36'-4 1.010C1 1 91111

Visual satellite image, 2245 GMT 14 April 1981.

I

Figure ld.

I11: 15 15AP81I I I I I I I I I I36i-Z OOO-6-1640 FULL

I I I I I I II I I I I L

Full disk infrared satellite image, 1115 GMT 15 April

~"i~-

/ : ~ : ~ ~ ~ ---- --:~~ -- -: I ..

Figure le. 1981.

Figure 2. Surface ship observations and a fewcoastal surface observations withMSL analysis for 12 GMT 14 April 1981(units are MSL pressure minus 1000 mb).Region containing VAS data is hatched.

Figure 3. Surface ship observations and a fewcoastal surface observations withMSL analysis for 12 GMT 15 April 1981(units same as for figure 2.).Region containing VAS data is hatched.

Figure 4. Locations of some selected VAS oceanic and coastal soundings,and coastal radiosondes.

(GF12) made from FINAL cycle, also valid at VAS observation time, and4) the operational (Hough) analysis. Figure 5 shows VAS observation locations.

The differences between VAS thicknesses and the analysis or forecastthicknesses for various pressure layers were calculated and expressed interms of thicknesses (in meters) according to

TK(Z) = (Z2 - Zl)vas - (Z2 - Zl)nmc

Mean temperature differences were expressed via the hypsometric equation as

TK( T ) = TK(Z) Rd ln(Pl/P 2 )

where, TK(Z) = thickness difference,in meters,

TK( T ) = mean temperature difference,in centigrade degrees,

Z2 = height of upper pressure level P ,

Z 1 = height of lower pressure level P ,

Rd = gas constant for dry air.

Figures 6a and 6b show the 1000-500 millibar thickness and mean thickness-temperature differences for both cases, while Table 2 summarizes the grossstatistical characteristics of the differences for this layer, for each case.

Table 2. Thickness and Mean Thickness-Temperature Difference Statistics,1000-500 millibar Layer (Soundings over land excluded)

CASE A, 12Z 14 April CASE B, 12Z 15 April

MEAN DIFFERENCETK(Z)/TK(T)

'Wrr f_ n f .r A a \

RMS DIFFERENCETK(Z)/TK(T){mE { \ l te .

MEAN DIFFERENCETK(Z)/TK(T)

f -

RMS DIFFERENCETK(Z)/TK(T)

, ,uN UJ ug) kmJ uj kmegm) um) kueg) km) k eg)L -72.9/-3.6 77.6/3.8 -45.6/-2.3 51.6/2.5

-78.6/-3.9 84.5/4.2 -46.8/-2.4 54.0/2.7-54.5/-2.7 58.3/2.9 -45.6/-2.2 54.3/9.7-53.1/-2.6 _ 60. 0/3 _.0

60.0/3.0-47.8/-2.4 -47.8/-2.4 53.0/2.6

The VAS-FMANL and VAS-FM12 differences in Table 2 are about fortypercent larger for Case A than for Case B, while those for VAS-GF12 andVAS-ANL (Hough) are only about fifteen percent larger. In contrast, theCase B mean and RMS differences for all four comparisons are nearlyidentical. Thus, the LFM may have been poorly initialized in Case A and,therefore, the impact of VAS data may be larger in that case than forCase B.

Vertical profiles of mean and RMS thickness (figures 7,8) exhibitsome notable similarities and differences between the two cases. The

COMPARIS(VAS-FMANIVAS-FM12VAS-GF12VAS-ANL

A

+ 4 4

1' ~ ~

Figure 5a. Location of VAS observations at 12 GMT 14 April 1981.

~~~~~+ +

* _ . ., .,. f . : f ~~~~~, .. .. ..

Figure 5b. Location of VAS observationsat 12 GMT 15 April 1981.

-0046-0028

-0) 51-0 0(6 t+00(06_0053-0010

-0064

-0051-UU33

-U t 1

07-011U +0010

- U I U 0-OUU 18-0:12

-00:)0-0100-009 1-0118

-00 96 -0110-0110

-0098 -0 109-0102 -0114

-; 102 -0066 -(-C099 -ul '7 -0075-0092 -0099

-0085 -0036-0C79 -0079

-C070 -0073-0080 -0(

-00:

VAS-FMANL -

-005'-0 0 5 2

-0049

-nO12-0030

-2046 +0027-0050+0002

-0061

-01.51!-U13 1_U-0129-UllZ1

-0135-U103 -0118- 0 1 Ue

-00941 -0090-OU0U -(09U -

-UOes -0033 -0037-OU92 -0(191 -U000

-m( -0U(87 -0058-OU87 -0U06

-006 -U0085 -(-00U 9 -o008b -007'

-0095 -000 -i

VAS-FM12

X

- U 08U-00080-urU8-Ur, l

-0025-1010

-UO33-0055·-0049 +002207055+0000- 007 7

-00oo66-007

-00d5_-0U86-0102-0106

-0105: -0057

-0069 -O0b5 -00-no62 -0079 -0060 -O

-105o -0650 -nO51 -0046/-00oo63 -0060 -0052 -004B/

-0057 -0056 O2 _ ,42-0040 -0050 - 52

-004% -0047 -0 -00.38 -0044 -OD

-0054 -On4l1 - 356-00

-00$O 51VA5- G1. I Z

-00'9-0049-0049

VAS-H(

-0103-0104-011A

-0125-0076 -0122

-0088 -0045

-0078 -o078 -00-00o73 -008 -o0051 -

-0o66 -o042 -1035 -oo0042-oo72 -0070 -0039 . -_oo/

-oo0063 -00oo -0025 -0051 -0043 -+3

-00849 - -00J --003c -0036 00

-003 -0020 - 43-00

-0026 -39

-00 3 -003_ -_ ~~-00 37)ugh

X

-0037-o042-0045

Figure 6a. 1000-500 mb thickness differences (meters), 12 GMT 14 April 1981.

3

-i02 !- )04010O04 t-0 13,';) - 0 04I:

-3)00

-(009 ;! JO 3 - 0O3 J2 1-00'+9 -CO L -I J 14

-OJ3 5 -)3,47 -V'7-0J3 -doJt - -)32:3 -0! ji,

-3 c ),,B - .).,: - -.1.) ', 5 -. ).1 q-Ui 1.23 -0' 6IS -0 4 - `3Ji

-' 064 -004. 38 -1 JO35 - ;J -'K.''-:.;C44 -o20-0;.2 I .,/

-0 .) 5 3- J E.7 -G 06t - J .}i6-:j'] 35

-0O iJ -J-j52 -6-00 5.

-00'34 *-33, -t0,-3 ,.,-t3L; jj L 5_ , ,rr

MANL

-0d45- ' -3 .', -. L14-00010

-U J 12

33D' 7-UO' 16

-O314-O6hS-032 3-0394 +00146

-)) )1 77 -00930; --9'35 +0060

-3C 5 2 0005j +J)OiO-3),3 -035l -02)79

-00lO -0 J6 2 -i))21 -3034-3)75 -3iLI7 3 -0J36 -0325

-01'1 -oh(, 4 -30 4 2 -034- 0 7 3 -OJ6, - )45 -( 035 -(306

-UO7 l-t,070 -004 [-0)13'-0035

-ougo -'07 )056- C -00093 -0077_ :3 -0055 3

-GO ')O0 u63 - L4 O9-0 05'~) 05- 00-- n1 ) , %, -(

-05+02

-U6-02 -U6-U5 -0U

-U4-1:3 +UO -02-07 -0 0 -12-0q4

-22 -07 -39-24-20 -C10 -14 -15

-a2L -13 -l i -01 +U~-27 -18-b -17 +00

-23-14 -10 -lb-! 6-10+UO+0j-16-l. +00-li - 4 --074/

-25-P3 -?G -1it -19 : -18 -E-26

VAS-FM12

-6ib --a6 L24-17

-26-36 -2e-36 -3i -?7-25

-27

-J 7-J . S

-0 0 - u2 - 09~J j -.J 4 ; 7. - t:f

- _ --Jii, I -)1' ) '

-03d7 -O') -I - ,I,1-3 - : )0 7 1C6'. - 03

-O -!)11 -,)43' -0035 -Ji3-J -j.l') -Vf 7).) I 5 -,,-OU SO Z -(.iJ-3U3: 5 L.

-!st 5- 331., nrI-, ^

1 ( -uJ 3-SC)S L A--),JJ, - ) .) _ \t) 5 J J(Jir

VAS-HoughVAS-GF12 -3 V)5b-03-i - )033

-,.):3024

: -o)0 2

-:)3 17

-G35 1--k/UG ?-33 o,'

-00.34- ,) bl I

-t 4 1-ot553 -,)ul

- ( J:33?

Figure 6b. 1000-500 mb thicIkness differences (meters), 12 GMT 15 April 1981.

VAS-F

5i:

LAYER THICKNESS DIFFERENCE.7 - g ~ - I- - - - - - - - - - -

LAYER MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE

9: .

7 ,'-, O tf

F1Ai NlJ

/

-50-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50MlTERS

IE&A

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5DEGREES

/!

.

R26I

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6DEGREES

9.

F12GF12

~-50-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50METERS

. __ ... _. _ ___ _. __

9

8

7

6

.54

3

MEAN

lk

._ _ .: S,

8

7

6

4

3

2

l'IEAN

M II: _II

RbI

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6DEGREES

Hough 6

/~~~~4

3

2

MEAN

r'EI"'

RbI

./

I

)1t S

RES

_ -50-40-30-20-10 010 20 30 40 50 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 67._ ,-0 4 -3 -0 1 MET'ERS,0 DEGREES

Figure 7. Thickness (meters) and mean temperature differences (degrees),12 GMT 14 April 1981, for 74 soundings over water.

6

FM12

50 -6 -5 -4

RbS

Irk

IYI

.1

pigs 1,

8

97

N

LAYER THICKNESS DIFFERENCE................... _ ... . ..

9

'-- 87

43

2

MIEAN

LAYER MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE

A

I

4.

'/

RE

R/

-50-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50:METERS

WEAN

I'/

RbE

,!S

-6-5-4-3-2-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6DEGREES

0

FM12

I! iD

, I

RMS

-50-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50METERS:

9

¥EA 8

7I 64

3

2

MEAN

-6 -5 -4-3 -2 -1 0DEGREES

)'4

/NI

MEAN

/

1

\

8

6 -)GF12

rI

/6

-50-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50METERS

4

3

2

WME

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1DEGREES

7.,-

/r,

/

I

\ S

2 3 4 5 6

9

I- 86

4

3

2

1MEAN

I

Hough

9

8

6

5

4

3

2

> N 1/EM

t

-50-40-30-20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50METERS

IJ

!/r

\

REMS

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6DEGREES

Figure 8. Thickness (meters) and mean temperature differences ('degrees),12 GMT April 1981, for 83 soundings over water..

EMS

1 2 3 4 5 6

I

n _ .__ ___ _I

N

\" I

el

large 1000-500mb VAS-FMANL and VAS-FM12 differences in Case A, mentionedpreviously, are largely accounted for by very large (up to 4.5 degrees)cold biases in layers 1-3 (Figure 7). In fact, both cases containsubstantial layer 1 differences, indicating that the assignment of VAS1000 mb temperatures could possibly be improved. Currently, surfacetemperatures in VAS soundings over water are taken exclusively from theFM12 first-guess. Sea surface temperatures are not used in constructingVAS soundings, nor is any input from VAS sounding data, except for soundingsover land (Kit Hayden, personal communication).

Vertical profiles of mean and rms thickness difference and meantemperature difference (figures 7,8) contain some notable similaritiesand differences between the two cases. Table 3 summarizes these attributes.

3. LFM Analysis with and without VAS data.

In order to obtain a subjective measure of the impact of VAS dataupon LFM analyses, LFM analysis reruns were performed using VAS data andcompared with the original (no-VAS) analyses (Figure 9). The effects ofusing VAS data in the Case A LFM analysis (FMANL), made apparent inFigures 9a,b, include1) deepening of the trough at 42.5° N and 142° W by about 30 meters andextending its influence farther south;2) the height contours just west of the Oregon and California coastsare turned from a southwest-to-northeast orientation to a more south-to-north orientation.

The effect of the VAS data on the Case B FMANL (Figures 9 c,d) issimilar to that observed in the previous case. The short wave-lengthtrough approaching the coast is deepened, the height gradient is rotatedmore east-west. Subsequent forecasts from these analyses are requiredto demonstrate the true effect of VAS data upon the LFM analysis/forecast system for these two cases. These forecasts are presentedand discussed in Part 2 of this preliminary evaluation (Office note 245).

4. Results and Conclusions.

This note has presented a preliminary evaluation of VISSR AtmosphericSounder (VAS) data for two cases during April 1981.

VAS and radiosonde temperature profiles were first comparedsubjectively. Similarities between VAS and radiosonde soundings overland (Appendix 1) were attributed to a combination of the probableinfluence of the first guess at upper levels, and to the use of Service Aobservations to provide surface temperatures. The VAS data was observedto be cold-biased below about 300 mb. Mean and rms difference statisticsof thickness difference and thickness-temperature difference (VAS-minusanalysis, or forecast) confirm that the VAS soundings were 2-4 centigradedegrees cooler than radiosondes below 300 mb in both cases. However,only in Case A were VAS soundings also 1-3 degrees too warm above 300 mb.

Table 3. Comparison and Contrast of Thickness andTemperature Difference Profiles

similarities

1) profiles for both cases are verysimilar in both mean difference(negative bias) and in shapebelow layer 6* (300-250 mb layer),

2) both cases contain relativemaxima of mean difference atlayer 6 or 7*,

3) two-dimensional plots (figure 6)show that largest differences forboth cases occur farthest from theCalifornia coast and nearest thecold air.

differences

1) Case A has a pronounced positivemean difference above layer 6,

2) Case B has its relative maximaof mean difference at layer 6,lower than in Case A,

3) Case B has smaller differencesthan Case A below layer 6, byabout 1 centigrade degree and 10 m.

* The layers referred to are defined as follows:layer 1 =layer 2 =

layer 3 =layer 4 =layer 5 =

layer 6 =

layer 7 =

layer 8 =

layer 9 =

1000850

700500400300250200

150

to 850 mbto 700 mb

to 500 mbto 400 mbto 300 mbto 250 mbto 200 mbto 150 mb

to 100 mb

."dt ~~~~~~I I -1

i a. Analysis without VASI 12 GMT 14 A~ril 1981i a. Analvsis without ViAS. 12 (GvIT 14 April 19qR1

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lr

_, ~~~~~~~~~. Aasis it V 12GT 5Api19--x

C. Analysis without VAS, 12 GMT 15 April 1981 d. Analysis with VAS, 12 GMT 15 April 1981

Figure 9. LFM 500 nb analyses of heights and temperatures, without and with VAS data(VAS data is over-plotted).

' - / .:

. ,.

The potential for the VAS data to significantly impact the LFM analysissystem was demonstrated by comparing LFM analyses made with, and withoutVAS data. In both Cases A and B, introducing VAS data in the analysisincreased the amplitude of the major height field features. Forecastsperformed from these analyses are presented in Part 2 of this evaluation(NMC Office Note 245).

REFERENCES

Smith, W.L., 1981: First Sounding Results from VAS-D. Bull. of the Amer.Meteor. Soc., 62, 232-236.

, 1981: Algorithms Used to Retrieve Surface Skin Temperature andVertical Temperature and Moisture Profiles from VISSR AtmosphericSounder (VAS) Radiance Observations, Preprint Volume: Fourth Conferenceon Atmospheric Radiation, June 16-18, 1981, Toronto, Ont., Canada,Published by the Amer. Meteor. Soc., Boston, Mass.

APPENDIX 1

Proximate VAS and Radiosonde Vertical Temperature Profiles

I: 7zs94 /za 14 AP/ '98'DEPARTMENT OF DEENSE 72 1,o

m ~~~. .(2 N' ~ .

USAF SKEW T. log p DIAGRAM 44 1 3.'v'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .....

S$ E%4- ' -- 4 --, '" " . '- V-. .----- ? .. '"

K 04: ~ '~i~" A A0'

%% ~''~ % ~' ~'o ~% ~' \~ · % · ' %.~ ~ "K ~ .. '%. "o -";% ' ,V I,.1j~,i~E.;~.~--/:,-~, ~~~~1 ~ , 'a - ; .. ,

" K V. ~ ~ ~ ~ ½ -,E l ' : -

~[1~~~~~~~~~~~ ' I* tr7~~~~~~~~~Q 'A - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-4-~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ .9'.

- DEPARTmENTO0 DEFENSE F 4S It 1 44 A PA, I9f/USAF SKEW T, log p DIAGRAM

ft ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. -P

, :

' :'' '4 '4 · "'"

's .4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'7 4' e ; / " l02 ~~~~~ ~'>°'

. g ?..s o. ..

4~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~, pAgqNHI ?(HIRAR ,| ,

DEPARTMENT Of DEFENSE

USAF SKEW T. l og p DIAGRAM729 12-B 14 AMPP ,yj

PA

74<>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0 -

N- ~ *'.<oL-0

f 0 ~ I ~VAs tow 14APA 191lDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Pt USAF SKEW T, log p DIAGRAM42- 4.S6 TCM~tn^~UE IN OCO"~Et F^..E~£[T AND CCLSIU~

J= rir l>lr l ti ;-l i .. . 7 ., V CL, ib)

~X ' I

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3"?~ -~ -- '*'

Age.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ I -'.j . f . r~eK~eerr lE~RA~uRX c,"

I 0~~~~ 0 ~DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF SKEW T, log p DIAGRAMs M 'r? 'r.U ' -O1tSrH. ;TADCLUst t s t . .' 0 I Nt P -. . 0 US '.'° 5%. 'n- % S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i4

[ 1

e. ~ 4

I C " •

� ,, x" "-'q� , , -, , "� '.�, , , , , I

. I "I .�' �,. `��

/ , X,1-1 " I , �%

11

EFENSE ME 14APP.1991p DIAGRAM w

1� A..

il

X - , i,, .1, : � "', � "X-I I", "N X, . ,, - , � " I - . " , '.

I

-4;,. , ., � -: N., i�1�'1R&Nm1-s"&)-"5-A 1.

71-�ll-VIl�l""IV7"�.,�Tl�,��Iv~

X

|0;"4

/�, i, -, -I'13 ";�- I -�4, X. >,,�, -A--1 ---, �� " � MI� - .11 .I ... -1- - --

- ....

I

I

i

I

II:vA--- A

Wn

X ~

E,

III

'7Z493 12..&%14AfP. IM37-744-Al fzz.La-w

�tia

r4�

I

DEPARTMENT OF D

USAF SKEW T, log... IA-

YaluDalkon 17 .rl,% x T,

ii,)�^, X, - .1,

, 7�\<X� I,,\ I ..

0,4 e.

N �, 1-I�, ,�%7- � " -'X'- - ..' . ;,x, . . �x .. " � ;

N/<- -W�N.,,�o . -', I " .. � -� 7,� Z -�,-, ;y 14. - 1, 1� X,

�/z-.1 " �< , �,, /:Quayle , w ',_G .~II>~~y,~lZ"~y-~",,l-N.x,\Vl.,",<

i 4;= rate 4I e - -...........

' ;V I 'E -74Z ,4 /'ze o 4P /9.0DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF SKEWT, log pDIAGRAM 44.PZ Al /Z3S.OZ

r,' t .' ', ,j;% , !t , N t:',.. ... .............. 'l~ 9 .......,,,!r.t~v: x~v ' N

1. IF\ \ -'~~~~~~~~~N

.-1... T-1"-._

0 A R L E T- _ 0

2~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t- '' ~

J Ax9t ' *. 7s

\:$ 'NA \i-xN~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:\A-.-. A'\, -'

' N ~ ~ ~ '-~~~-:

-. '1 ;: ; :: l : :: | VAsI- '- i .ISt R- 717DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF SKEW T. log p DIAGRAM 4 i 23-34 .j1 *mlFI > Sr~~~~~~~.;...... r , ... r. ...... '. . ... 70 6 9} 0:.:, 1-1 ( L...b)

_'3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x ,j> 0s

''kX ! .I

.,.. .. "1r. ,,.X

.-; '\! k \ \

I

-.�; --.; - I .; -4- -4- � , � I. .; i .; " m v - .. s - i - 1. . .. . .. ... - 'i.-

.:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF SKEW T, log p DIAGRAMr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __TEn .^?UR £ IN _£ __A_ _NH£IT ANCO C/ELSIUS

i L--

t.

,]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE /A /2 90USAF SKEW T, Iog p DIAGRAM YhZ.93 Al I317 .1 '

'a ' V

[T] \N 5 · ..

WM- ii irpr;T; E [ltag~g~rL Fff TZ 1sus t I L rtt~ iib) |

AV't

· " ,,~ .- -,' 1- :E122W.'~ ~ ~~~ _ _ ' . .'~ ~~ :: : ' : _E.;,~ ' '~ "r..~~ ~ -~'-, .- 9,..~'.,- it~- >

: -7Z49 Z3 /Z Sr 4p.DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF SKEW T, log p DIAGRAM 37. '7C ' 2.JT0-PE.AT-0 1t - 1 I ... I ... IT _A

"~~~~~~~~~~~/>' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ¾ ,. N~. '

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 4 0->O R -*0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ';.OW .0>-.4 i > '.o. .or "S,, :,O .e

-o,.. . - 7 o <-- . .l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i 1 ;'

1- 4g "~~~~~~~~: ~:i,

Y A' A, ,

t'~~~~~~~~~ IO'. .

I ~ ~~~~~~ ~ %' 'n~er ar.Rso~

N _ . :o _. :'

USAF SKEW 1. log p DIAGRAM 3731t I 2. EC9 IA

Haiti ~ ~ ~ ¾(c~e~

: YK -~2-2< --

. . .. .. m.-- .. .. -4 �,;I I I .1 s m 1. w.- .. -FA-1-1 -- 1 -

APPENDIX 2

Oceanic VAS:Vertical Temperature Profiles

* . DEPAOTMONT OFDEFffJSE � 144. 1 t /9$i..USM SKEWT. iogp DIAGRAM** Zt �.4 I39�,g 10

.. tE0�tA4Thflfl�0t44E0SO.,4,(0,E�T004C3L44,5 - (oca4�,c)u�Z:;IT:F�r.;t.�T;t< .*.; . .j.; 70'*0. o� 0� '00 oJ�0 "o '

9oo'�o.p �

>5 ' '� N 7/

tr�Nv' 'y, >55k' 4.. �3,',. �0.V�0#�

V�" �\ &Y' ''5¾ $'5

4

$7.

400 ''' *Yo* ' 7

y / �

3.' -4� \73 Ž7K7 .,. 00 '.4

A IS. '->

N.'.,.' V

.4-.

.4 .

7,7', .'7\

- .1� 400 90 .

27.> ->-'r , 7A -'4.

-� ... 'N ..',,, *0 4.

-' �'- a - - 000

* 7. 1p -'

- 4

� '-.N4,

'-.4, -- r� �5�'�t --

F .- N �' - � m'-Ct' '/s>n4 ,&.. . L#ŽfŽtc,.. 4*�

- 4, *3004.

.r.'- � 427&.'t'N o � Nfl. 7jj3'Z7' -t - �4'7'z��. Ž4N.. --t

"a ir 'ins -�430 * *� * � OEPAOOM4NT OFflEffl'J #9• ,.- 'arrrc /�rrUSAF SKEWT, log p DIAGRAM �E 7)1 N 13�.35 in

.7.r T � - ()� oY'ooosyo '�%.

.7K> ">2> �'

.� ,\', t .>�

2

)

r7> . >.,�.

\-'.\ N �/

7 \ �'090 > Nj

..,.'.r'. �.-... ,m& ,.� --C Cs '4%�t

09 a ,�. m'�

I . , . ~~K T. 'o ',:,: :'J 2; ' :/ '.~ '~- .: ':::90#tAW DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 0 :VAS Ma 14bo ifPR8:USAF 5KEWT . log pDIAGRAM ,- -. S:..: ..q . * -. .

:~~~~~~~~~~~~0500T05,0 0 00006L,,

?F %>, . ~:. :'; :.D'% WkA '-".; \s ··" '-.' .:' ./

<200 ." 'N.. ,, ,L ?,~ · . , . ,.. .

= '°i ffi M I! ~~~~~~~~~AR~i~H~Rs~rf .%,'.k/. %. : i. .' - 0 ;

7.'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

! . .................. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE VI:. 'a. .P f : :. 2" .3 USAF SKEWT. logpDIAGRAM -37CZ -

*' ' -. -"ri {,~:;!:~l1 '1 - , . ,..", [o~,s,r) /0 .

;~ , ;:.': .¢ 0/. .. · ·- :. , .!

:=,%~ ~'v-,";. ,'4 :' '';,; '.'';': ,....

.~,6 .. ~e ¥-.. '','- ~:'

iZ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. £ ..- ,* -;f. '~ 7' : · ._, ' .(''-.

-'

'- 1

~~~~~~~~~~'49 9 ~ . i;

USFSKEW T. Iogp DIAGRAM- - o 9t /1 .,&

A. Or

Ax .~~~~~~~~~~ . P N's~~~~~~~~~~~~~h

/ 2'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F

* N\' OM~'

DEPARTMB4T OC FWSE iaze -2# e rfo-Is oV-.zt I B R 4 - - X USAF SKEW T. log p DIAGRAM' . - ' .At,, i " ........... ro O r t r ; 7: %'- .'(ocsaaro c.¶ i.' ' ' . .:L

'..~ . ~ r :: ,,~, , · . . . , ,, ,

7,Vlp ~ ~,~~.,y :!-.. '' :::~,:~ ~~~ W....A~...::~:

,,~e~~~~~~~~o

l