History Group Newsletter 1, 2013, Pp.8-9
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Comparing Historical and Modern Methods of Sea Surface Temperature
EGU Journal Logos (RGB) Open Access Open Access Open Access Advances in Annales Nonlinear Processes Geosciences Geophysicae in Geophysics Open Access Open Access Natural Hazards Natural Hazards and Earth System and Earth System Sciences Sciences Discussions Open Access Open Access Atmospheric Atmospheric Chemistry Chemistry and Physics and Physics Discussions Open Access Open Access Atmospheric Atmospheric Measurement Measurement Techniques Techniques Discussions Open Access Open Access Biogeosciences Biogeosciences Discussions Open Access Open Access Climate Climate of the Past of the Past Discussions Open Access Open Access Earth System Earth System Dynamics Dynamics Discussions Open Access Geoscientific Geoscientific Open Access Instrumentation Instrumentation Methods and Methods and Data Systems Data Systems Discussions Open Access Open Access Geoscientific Geoscientific Model Development Model Development Discussions Open Access Open Access Hydrology and Hydrology and Earth System Earth System Sciences Sciences Discussions Open Access Ocean Sci., 9, 683–694, 2013 Open Access www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/ Ocean Science doi:10.5194/os-9-683-2013 Ocean Science Discussions © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Open Access Open Access Solid Earth Solid Earth Discussions Comparing historical and modern methods of sea surface Open Access Open Access The Cryosphere The Cryosphere temperature measurement – Part 1: Review of methods, Discussions field comparisons and dataset adjustments J. B. R. Matthews School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada Correspondence to: J. B. R. Matthews ([email protected]) Received: 3 August 2012 – Published in Ocean Sci. Discuss.: 20 September 2012 Revised: 31 May 2013 – Accepted: 12 June 2013 – Published: 30 July 2013 Abstract. Sea surface temperature (SST) has been obtained 1 Introduction from a variety of different platforms, instruments and depths over the past 150 yr. -
Evolution of NOAA's Observing System Integrated Analysis (NOSIA)
Evolution of NOAA’s Observing System Integrated Analysis (NOSIA) Presented to the 13th Symposium on Societal Applications: Policy, Research and Practice (paper 9.1) Louis Cantrell Jr., and D. Helms, R. C. Reining, A. Pratt, B. Priest, and V. Ries 98th Annual Meeting American Meteorological Society Austin, Texas Overview 1 How NOSIA Informs Portfolio Decision Making 2 How NOSIA is Evolving Observing System Portfolio Management 3 System Engineering Measure of Effectiveness Each point on the Efficient Frontier represents an optimum Portfolio of Observing Programs within a Constrained Budget utcomes) O Measure of Effectiveness Measure Effectiveness of (MoE: Cost 4 Capability Improvement Prioritization NOAA Emerging Technologies for Observations Workshop Sponsored by the NOAA Observing Systems Council August 22-23, 2017 - NCWCP Identifying Capability Improvements for the Greatest NOAA -wide Benefit ▪ National Water Level Observation Network ▪ Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Buoy Ocean Profiles ▪ Commercial Fisheries Dependent Data Surveys ▪ ARGO ▪ Integrated Ocean Observing System Regionals ▪ Animal Borne Sensors ▪ National Observer Program (NOP) ▪ Drifting Buoy Network ▪ NEXRAD Precipitation Products ▪ Program-funded Habitat Surveys ▪ Coastal Weather Buoys Atmospheric Surface Observations ▪ Recreational Fish Surveys ▪ Historical Habitat Databases ▪ Chartered Vessels Research ▪ NWS Upper Air Soundings ▪ Coastal-Marine Automated Network ▪ GOES Imagery ▪ NERR_SWMP ▪ Automated Weather Observing System ▪ Global Ocean Observing System Carbon Network -
The Unnamed Atlantic Tropical Storms of 1970
944 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW Vol. 99, No. 12 UDC 551.515.23:661.507.35!2:551.607.362.2(261) “1970.08-.lo” THE UNNAMED ATLANTIC TROPICAL STORMS OF 1970 DAVID B. SPIEGLER Allied Research Associates, Inc., Concord, Mass. ABSTRACT A detailed analysis of conventional and aircraft reconnaissance data and satellite pictures for two unnamed Atlantic Ocean cyclones during 1970 indicates that the stqrms were of tropical nature and were probably of at least minimal hurricane intensity for part of their life history. Prior to becoming a hurricane, one of the storms exhibited characteristics not typical of any of the recognized classical cyclone types [i.e., tropical, extratropical, and subtropical (Kona)]. The implications of this are discussed and the concept of semitropical cyclones as a separate cyclone category is advanced. 6. INTRODUCTION ing recognition of hybrid-type storms provides additional support for the recommendation. During the 1970 tropical cyclone season, tn7o storms occurred that were not given names at the time. The 2. UNNAMED STORM NO. I-AUG. Q3-$8, 6970 National Hurricane Center (NHC) monitored their prog- ress and issued bulletins throughout their life history but A mell-organized tropical disturbance noted on satellite they mere not officially recognized as tropical cyclones of pictures during August 8, south of the Cape Verde Islands tropical storm or hurricane intensity. In their annual post- in the far eastern tropical Atlantic, intensified to ti strong season summary of the hurricane season, NHC discusses depression as it moved westmarcl. On Thursday, August 13, these storms in some detail (Simpson and Pelissier 1971) some further intensification of the system appeared to be but thej- are not presently included in the official list of taking place while the depression was about 250 mi 1970 tropical storms. -
UMAP Lidars (UMBC Measurements of Atmospheric Pollution)
UMAP Lidars (UMBC Measurements of Atmospheric Pollution) Raymond Hoff Ruben Delgado, Tim Berkoff, Jamie Compton, Kevin McCann, Patricia Sawamura, Daniel Orozco, UMBC October 5 , 2010 DISCOVR-AQ Engel-Cox, J. et.al. 2004. Atmospheric Environment. Baltimore, MD Summer 2004 100 1.6 90 Old Town TEOMPM2.5 MODIS 1.4 80 MODIS AOD July 21 ) 1.2 3 70 Mixed down July 9 smoke 1 g/m 60 High altitude µ ( smoke 50 0.8 (g ) AOD 2.5 40 0.6 PM 30 0.4 20 0.2 MODISAerosol Optical Depth 10 0 0 07/01/04 07/08/04 07/15/04 07/22/04 07/29/04 08/05/04 08/12/04 08/19/04 08/26/04 Courtesy EPA/UWisconsin Conceptually simple idea Η α Extinction Profile and PBL H 100 1.6 Smoke mixing in Hourly PM2.5 90 Daily Average PM2.5 1.4 Maryland 80 MODIS AOD Lidar OD Total Column 20-22 July 2004 Lidar OD Below Boundary Layer 1.2 ) 70 3 60 1 (ug/m 50 0.8 2.5 40 0.6 PM 30 Depth Optical 0.4 20 10 0.2 0 0 07/19/04 07/20/04 07/21/04 07/22/04 07/23/04 Before upgrading: 2008 Existing ALEX - UV N2, H2O Raman lidar - 355, 389, 407 nm ELF - 532(⊥,), 1064 elastic lidar GALION needs QA/QC site for lidars in US Have all the wavelengths that people might use routinely Ability to cross-calibrate instruments Need to add MPL and LEOSPHERE Micropulse Lidar Leosphere UMBC Monitoring of Atmospheric Pollution (UMAP) (NASA Radiation Sciences Supported Project) Weblinks to instruments http://alg.umbc.edu/UMAP Data available 355 nm Leosphere retrieval (new) New instruments BAM and TEOM (PM2.5 continuously) TSI 3683 (3λ nephelometer) CIMEL (8λ AOD, size distribution) LICEL (new detector package for ALEX) MPL Shareware Concept Lidar and radiosonde measurements were also used to evaluate nearby ACARS PBLH estimates at RFK and BWI airports. -
NCEP Synergy Meeting Highlights: March 27, 2017
NCEP Synergy Meeting Highlights: March 27, 2017 This meeting was led by Mark Klein (WPC) and attended by Steven Earle (NCO); Glenn White (GCWMB); Israel Jirak (SPC); Mike Brennan (NHC) Scott Scallion (MDL); Brian Miretsky (ER); Jack Settelmaier (SR); Andy Edman (WR); John Eise (CR), and Curtis Alexander (ESRL). 1. NOTES FROM NCO (Steven Earle) RTMA/URMA - Implementation delayed until May 2 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/scn17-17rtma_urma.htm LMP/GLMP - Implementation scheduled for 3/29 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/scn17-22lamp_glmpaaa.htm ECMWF-MOS - Implementation tentatively scheduled for 3/30; Likely to delay at least a week. Internal NWS only NHC Guidance Suite (NHC only) - Scheduled implementation in mid-May http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/pns17-09chghurche77removal.htm ESTOFS-Atlantic - Feedback due by COB today with implementation April 25 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/notification/scn17-34extratropical.htm NWM - 30-day IT stability test scheduled to begin today. Implementation scheduled for early May. SCN to be released soon. GFS - 30-day IT stability test scheduled to begin in May; Implementation scheduled for mid-June. SCN will be released in early May. CMAQ - CONUS only upgrade. Evaluation and IT stability test expected to start at the end of April PETSS/ETSS - NCO began work on the upgrade; Evaluation and IT stability expected to start in early May 2. NOTES FROM EMC 2a. Global Climate and Weather Modeling Branch (GCWMB) (Glenn White): The Office of the Director has approved the implementation of the GFS NEMS. The 30-day IT test is now scheduled for May and implementation is scheduled for mid-June. -
The Impact of Dropsonde and Extra Radiosonde Observations During NAWDEX in Autumn 2016
FEBRUARY 2020 S C H I N D L E R E T A L . 809 The Impact of Dropsonde and Extra Radiosonde Observations during NAWDEX in Autumn 2016 MATTHIAS SCHINDLER Meteorologisches Institut, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat,€ Munich, Germany MARTIN WEISSMANN Hans-Ertel Centre for Weather Research, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Munich, Germany, and Institut fur€ Meteorologie und Geophysik, Universitat€ Wien, Vienna, Austria ANDREAS SCHÄFLER Institut fur€ Physik der Atmosphare,€ Deutsches Zentrum fur€ Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany GABOR RADNOTI European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom (Manuscript received 2 May 2019, in final form 18 November 2019) ABSTRACT Dropsonde observations from three research aircraft in the North Atlantic region, as well as several hundred additionally launched radiosondes over Canada and Europe, were collected during the international North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment (NAWDEX) in autumn 2016. In addition, over 1000 dropsondes were deployed during NOAA’s Sensing Hazards with Operational Unmanned Technology (SHOUT) and Reconnaissance missions in the west Atlantic basin, supplementing the conven- tional observing network for several intensive observation periods. This unique dataset was assimilated within the framework of cycled data denial experiments for a 1-month period performed with the global model of the ECMWF. Results show a slightly reduced mean forecast error (1%–3%) over the northern Atlantic and Europe by assimilating these additional observations, with the most prominent error reductions being linked to Tropical Storm Karl, Cyclones Matthew and Nicole, and their subsequent interaction with the midlatitude waveguide. The evaluation of Forecast Sensitivity to Observation Impact (FSOI) indicates that the largest impact is due to dropsondes near tropical storms and cyclones, followed by dropsondes over the northern Atlantic and additional Canadian radiosondes. -
Automated Underway Oceanic and Atmospheric Measurements from Ships
AUTOMATED UNDERWAY OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENTS FROM SHIPS Shawn R. Smith (1), Mark A. Bourassa (1), E. Frank Bradley (2), Catherine Cosca (3), Christopher W. Fairall (4), Gustavo J. Goni (5), John T. Gunn (6), Maria Hood (7), Darren L. Jackson (8), Elizabeth C. Kent (9), Gary Lagerloef (6), Philip McGillivary (10), Loic Petit de la Villéon (11), Rachel T. Pinker (12), Eric Schulz (13), Janet Sprintall (14), Detlef Stammer (15), Alain Weill (16), Gary A. Wick (17), Margaret J. Yelland (9) (1) Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2840, USA, Emails: [email protected], [email protected] (2) CSIRO Land and Water, PO Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA, Email: [email protected] (3) NOAA/PMEL, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, USA, Email: [email protected] (4) NOAA/ESRL/PSD, R/PSD3, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305-3328, USA, Email: [email protected] (5) USDC/NOAA/AOML/PHOD, 4301 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA, Email: [email protected] (6) Earth and Space Research, 2101 Fourth Ave., Suite 1310, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA, Emails: [email protected], [email protected] (7) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission UNESCO, 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, FRANCE, Email: [email protected] (8) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, NOAA/ESRL/PSD, 325 Broadway, R/PSD2, Boulder, CO 80305, USA, Email: [email protected] (9) National Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK, Emails: [email protected], -
Massively Deployable, Low-Cost Airborne Sensor Motes for Atmospheric Characterization
Wireless Sensor Network, 2020, 12, 1-11 https://www.scirp.org/journal/wsn ISSN Online: 1945-3086 ISSN Print: 1945-3078 Massively Deployable, Low-Cost Airborne Sensor Motes for Atmospheric Characterization Michael Bolt, J. Craig Prather, Tyler Horton, Mark Adams Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA How to cite this paper: Bolt, M., Prather, Abstract J.C., Horton, T. and Adams, M. (2020) Massively Deployable, Low-Cost Airborne A low-cost airborne sensor mote has been designed for deployment en masse Sensor Motes for Atmospheric Characteri- to characterize atmospheric conditions. The designed environmental sensing zation. Wireless Sensor Network, 12, 1-11. mote, or eMote, was inspired by the natural shape of auto-rotating maple https://doi.org/10.4236/wsn.2020.121001 seeds to fall slowly and gather data along its descent. The eMotes measure Received: January 2, 2020 and transmit temperature, air pressure, relative humidity, and wind speed es- Accepted: January 28, 2020 timates alongside GPS coordinates and timestamps. Up to 2080 eMotes can Published: January 31, 2020 be deployed simultaneously with a 1 Hz sampling rate, but the system capac- Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and ity increases by 2600 eMotes for every second added between samples. All Scientific Research Publishing Inc. measured and reported data falls within accuracy requirements for reporting This work is licensed under the Creative with both the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the National Commons Attribution International Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This paper presents the License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ design and validation of the eMote system alongside discussions on the imple- Open Access mentation of a large-scale, low-cost sensor network. -
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Part 1000 INTRODUCTION 1010 INTRODUCTION 1010 A. Scope and Application of Methods The procedures described in these standards are intended for the examination of waters of a wide range of quality, including water suitable for domestic or industrial supplies, surface water, ground water, cooling or circulating water, boiler water, boiler feed water, treated and untreated municipal or industrial wastewater, and saline water. The unity of the fields of water supply, receiving water quality, and wastewater treatment and disposal is recognized by presenting methods of analysis for each constituent in a single section for all types of waters. An effort has been made to present methods that apply generally. Where alternative methods are necessary for samples of different composition, the basis for selecting the most appropriate method is presented as clearly as possible. However, samples with extreme concentrations or otherwise unusual compositions or characteristics may present difficulties that preclude the direct use of these methods. Hence, some modification of a procedure may be necessary in specific instances. Whenever a procedure is modified, the analyst should state plainly the nature of modification in the report of results. Certain procedures are intended for use with sludges and sediments. Here again, the effort has been to present methods of the widest possible application, but when chemical sludges or slurries or other samples of highly unusual composition are encountered, the methods of this manual may require modification or may be inappropriate. Most of the methods included here have been endorsed by regulatory agencies. Procedural modification without formal approval may be unacceptable to a regulatory body. -
Driftsondes Providing in Situ Long-Duration Dropsonde Observations Over Remote Regions
DRIFTSONDES Providing In Situ Long-Duration Dropsonde Observations over Remote Regions BY STEPHEN A. COHN, TERRY HOCK, PHILIPPE COCQUEREZ, JUNHONG WANG, FLORENCE RABIER, DAVID PARSONS, PATRICK HARR, CHUN-CHIEH WU, PHILIPPE DROBINSKI, FATIMA KARBOU, STÉPHANIE VÉNEL, ANDRÉ VARGas, NadIA FOURRIÉ, NATHALIE SAINT-RAMOND, VINCENT GUIdaRD, ALEXIS DOERENBECHER, HUANG-HSIUNG HSU, PO-HSIUNG LIN, MING-DAH CHOU, JEAN-LUC REDELSPERGER, CHARLIE MARTIN, JacK FOX, NICK POTTS, KATHRYN YOUNG, AND HAL COLE A field-tested, balloon-borne dropsonde platform fills an important gap in in-situ research measurement capabilities by delivering high-resolution, MIST dropsondes to remote locations from heights unobtainable by research aircraft. igh-quality in situ measure- ments from radiosondes and H dropsondes are the gold stan- dard for vertical profiles of funda- mental atmospheric measurements such as wind, temperature (T), and relative humidity (RH). Satellite- borne remote sensors provide much- needed global, long-term coverage; however, they do not match the ability of sondes to capture sharp transitions and fine vertical struc- ture, and have significant perfor- mance limitations (e.g., the inability of infrared sounders to penetrate clouds, poor accuracy in the bound- ary layer). Sondes are also a trusted FIG. 1. The driftsonde system concept. means to calibrate and validate remote sensors. However, it is challenging to launch understanding the development of tropical cyclones radiosondes from remote locations such as the ocean to validating satellite retrievals in Antarctica. surface or the interior of Antarctica. Aircraft release The driftsonde is a unique balloonborne in- dropsondes above such locations but are limited by strument that releases dropsondes to provide the range and endurance of the aircraft. -
Global Hawk Dropsonde Observations of the Arctic Atmosphere Obtained During the Winter Storms and Pacific Atmospheric Rivers (WISPAR) field Campaign
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3917–3926, 2014 www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3917/2014/ doi:10.5194/amt-7-3917-2014 © Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Global Hawk dropsonde observations of the Arctic atmosphere obtained during the Winter Storms and Pacific Atmospheric Rivers (WISPAR) field campaign J. M. Intrieri1, G. de Boer1,2, M. D. Shupe1,2, J. R. Spackman1,3, J. Wang4,6, P. J. Neiman1, G. A. Wick1, T. F. Hock4, and R. E. Hood5 1NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA 2Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Box 216 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USA 3Science and Technology Corporation, Boulder, CO 80305, USA 4National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1850 Table Mesa Dr., Boulder, CO 80305, USA 5NOAA, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program, 1200 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA 6University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences, Albany, NY 12222, USA Correspondence to: J. M. Intrieri ([email protected]) Received: 20 February 2014 – Published in Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss.: 23 April 2014 Revised: 15 September 2014 – Accepted: 20 October 2014 – Published: 25 November 2014 Abstract. In February and March of 2011, the Global Hawk Comparison of dropsonde observations with atmospheric re- unmanned aircraft system (UAS) was deployed over the Pa- analyses reveal that, for this day, large-scale structures such cific Ocean and the Arctic during the Winter Storms and as the polar vortex and air masses are captured by the re- Pacific Atmospheric Rivers (WISPAR) field campaign. The analyses, while smaller-scale features, including low-level WISPAR science missions were designed to (1) improve our jets and inversion depths, are mischaracterized. -
Science^Llfn for the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM)
DOE/ER-0670T RECEIVED WR2 5 896 Science^llfn for the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) February 1996 United States Department of Energy Office of Energy Research Office of Health and Environmental Research Environmental Sciences Division DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi• bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer• ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, .or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom• mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This report has been reproduced directly from die best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE Contractors from die Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from die U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650. Primed with soy ink on recycled paper DOE/ER-0670T UC-402 Science Plan for the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) February 1996 MAST United States Department of Energy Office of Energy Research Office of Health and Environmental Research Environmental Sciences Division Washington, DC 20585 DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT !§ UNLIMITED Executive Summary Executive Summary The purpose of this Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 4.