DQRID : D080829.2
Start DateStart TimeEnd DateEnd Time Data Quality Metric
09/02/2006113509/02/20061435Suspect
08/13/2006230008/13/20062359Suspect
08/06/2006110008/06/20061800Suspect
08/25/2006113608/25/20061436Suspect
09/03/2006113009/03/20061430Suspect
09/02/2006173409/02/20062034Suspect
09/13/2006113109/13/20061431Suspect
08/14/2006110008/14/20061200Suspect
09/11/2006053209/11/20060832Suspect
09/04/2006173109/04/20062031Suspect
08/28/2006053308/28/20060833Suspect
09/04/2006113409/04/20061434Suspect
09/03/2006173009/03/20062030Suspect
08/26/2006113408/26/20061434Suspect
08/12/2006110008/12/20062359Suspect
09/05/2006113109/05/20061431Suspect
09/03/2006053409/03/20060834Suspect
09/12/2006113109/12/20061431Suspect
09/14/2006113109/14/20061431Suspect
08/16/2006110008/16/20061200Suspect
more
Subject:
SGP/SONDE/C1 - Suspect RH profile from 150-350 m above ground level
DataStreams:sgpsondewnpnC1.b1
Description:
Several radiosondes were noticed to have a very stark dry layer between 150 m and 350 m, 
where the RH dropped from approximately 60-80% (which I would take as close to the ambient 
conditions) to less than 2%.  The character of these dropouts look like instrument 
issues, as it only a handful of radiosondes that appear to be affected.  The quicklook images 
from the Raman lidar does not show any very dry layers, thus supporting the hypothesis 
that the RH measurements from these radiosondes (at least in this small ~200 m level) are 
in error.  I should note that the temperature profiles look normal.
Suggestions: 
I believe that these RH profiles in this altitude region are bad, and the data in 

this portion of the profile should not be used; however, the rest of the profile seems 
reasonable.  I would recommend that users edit these profiles to remove this small 
(approximately 200 m) section of the profile before their analysis.
Measurements:sgpsondewnpnC1.b1:
  • rh
  • dp
more

Close this window