Aircraft Temperatures
Early
 in the MERRA reanalysis period, aircraft observations are sparse, but 
increase in time, eventually providing a significant amount of 
conventional observations. Cardinali et al. (2003) identified biases in 
aircraft temperature observations, and Ballish and Kumar (2008) further 
examined the biases in each type of commercial aircraft. Figure 1 shows 
an 2001-2009 mean bias between collocated aircraft and radiosonde 200mb 
temperature, over the United  States. Almost everywhere, aircraft are 
warmer than the radiosonde observations.
|  | 
| Figure 1 Collocated aircraft/RAOB at 200mb temperature (K) differences assimilated in MERRA averaged from 2001-2012. (computed from the differences of each observaitons background departure) | 
Figure
 2 shows the monthly mean difference between collocated radiosonde and 
aircraft observations assimilated in MERRA over the U. S., while the 
dots show the number of collocations (thou/yr).  While the data for 
these figures are binned and gridded, area and monthly averaging include
 weighting for the number of observations. Early in the reanalysis, 
there are lower numbers of aircraft observations, and the differences 
reflect that with more monthly variability. In 1990-1991, increasing 
number of observations increase the distribution of data, and the warm bias converges. After 1996, there is an exaggeration in the annual cycle, 
where the summer aircraft observations get even warmer. However, every month is a positive difference.
The
 increasing number of collocations reflects the increase in availability
 of aircraft observations. There are many more aircraft observations 
being assimilated away from the vicinity of the radiosondes. The number 
of observations then influences the data assimilation, where the 
analysis is drawn toward the aircraft data. Figure 3 shows the time 
series of background departure for collocated radiosonde and aircraft 200mb 
temperature. As the aircraft observations increase in number, their background departure decreases (this also holds for the RMS of the background departure). 
Both
 Cardinali et al (2003) and Ballish and Kumar (2008) have suggested bias
 corrections for commercial aircraft temperature data, using more 
limited comparisons than these. ECMWF has implemented a bias correction 
in their forecast system.


 
No comments:
Post a Comment