L /I // NOAA Technical Report EDS 25 A< "% *>*TES O* + \ / GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center: Final Report on Ship Surface Data Validation Washington, D.C. January 1978 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS Environmental Data Service Series The Environmental Data Service (EDS) archives and disseminates a broad spectrum of environmental data gathered by the various components of NOAA and by the various cooperating agencies and activities throughout the world. The EDS is a "bank" of worldwide environmental data upon which the researcher may draw to study and analyze environmental phenomena and their impact upon commerce, agriculture, industry, aviation, and other activities of man. The EDS also conducts studies to put environmental phenomena and relations into proper historical and statistical perspective and to provide a basis for assessing changes in the natural environment brought about by man's activities. The EDS series of NOAA Technical Reports is a continuation of the former series, the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) Technical Report, EDS. Reports in the series are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Sills Bldg. , 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Prices on request for paper copies; $3.00 microfiche. When available, order by accession number shown in parentheses. ESSA Technical Reports EDS 1 Upper Wind Statistics of the Northern Western Hemisphere. Harold L. Crutcher and Don K. Halli- gan, April 1967. (PB174921) EDS 2 Direct and Inverse Tables of the Gamma Distribution. H. C. S. Thorn, April 1968. (PB178320) EDS 3 Standard Deviation of Monthly Average Temperature. H. C. S. Thorn, April 1968. (PB178309) EDS 4 Prediction of Movement and Intensity of Tropical Storms Over the Indian Seas During the October to December Season. P. Jagannathan and H. L. Crutcher, May 1968. (PB178497) EDS 5 An Application of the Gamma Distribution Function to Indian Rainfall. D. A. Mooley and H. L. Crutcher, August 1968. (PB180056) EDS 6 Quantiles of Monthly Precipitation for Selected Stations in the Contiguous United States. H. C. S. Thorn and Ida B. Vestal, August 1968. (PB180057) EDS 7 A Comparison of Radiosonde Temperatures at the 100- , 80-, 50-, and 30-mb Levels. Harold L. Crutcher and Frank T. Quinlan, August 1968. (PB180058) EDS 8 Characteristics and Probabilities of Precipitation in China. Augustine Y. M. Yao, September 1969. (PB188420) EDS 9 Markov Chain Models for Probabilities of Hot and Cool Days Sequences and Hot Spells in Nevada. Clarence M. Sakamoto, March 1970. (PB193221) NOAA Technical Reports EDS 10 BOMEX Temporary Archive Description of Available Data. Terry de la Moriniere, January 1972. (COM-72-50289) EDS 11 A Note on a Gamma Distribution Computer Program and Graph Paper. Harold L. Crutcher, Gerald L. Barger, and Grady F. McKay, April 1973. (COM-73-11401) EDS 12 BOMEX Permanent Archive: Description of Data. Center for Experiment Design and Data Analysis, May 1975. EDS 13 Precipitation Analysis for BOMEX Period III. M.D. Hudlow and W. D. Scherer, September 1975. (PB246870) EDS 14 IFYGL Rawinsonde System: Description of Archived Data. Sandra M. Hoexter, May 1976. (PB258057) EDS 15 IFYGL Physical Data Collection System: Description of Archived Data. Jack Foreman, September 1976. (PB261829) (Continued on inside back cover) NOAA Technical Report EDS 25 GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center : Final Report on Ship Surface Data Validation '''Went of Center for Experiment Design and Data Analysis Ward R. Seguin Raymond B. Crayton Paul Sabol John W. Carlile Washington, D.C. January 1978 =5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Richard A. Frank, Administrator Environmental Data Service Thomas S. Austin, Director CONTENTS Pa .a e Abstract 1 1. Introduction 1 2. Validation of the GATE Phase data 2 3. Phase means 3 3.1 Pressure 10 3.2 Dry-bulb temperature 15 3.3 Wet-bulb temperature 20 3.4 Sea- surface temperature 25 3.5 Wind speed 30 3.6 Wind direction 35 4. Summary of data validation and analysis 40 4.1 Pressure 40 4.2 Dry-bulb temperature 40 4.3 Wet-bulb temperature 43 4.4 Sea- surface temperature 43 4.5 Wind direction and wind speed 44 References 44 Appendix A. Updates and corrections to earlier CSDC reports 46 Appendix B. Archived data 49 Appendix C. On-station dates, times, and locations for GATE A/B-, B-, and C-scale ships 72 in GATE CONVECTION SUBPROGRAM DATA CENTER: FINAL REPORT ON SURFACE DATA VALIDATION Ward R. Seguin, Raymond Crayton, Paul Sabol, and John Carlile Center for Experiment Design and Data Analysis Environmental Data Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Washington, D.C. 20235 Abstract . This report describes the results of validation of the surface meteorological data collected by the ships in the A/B-, B-, and C-scale arrays during the 1974 GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE) . Mean meteorological fields for each of the three GATE observation Phases were analyzed in order to determine the average biases in the measurement of each variable on each ship. Charts of resulting mean values and tabulations of the biases are presented. Included also are updates and corrections to earlier reports issued as part of the GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center, and documenta- tion pertaining to the archived data. 1. INTRODUCTION This is the second of two reports on the analysis and validation of the ship surface meteorological data acquired during the 1974 GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE). The first, NOAA Technical Report EDS 17 (Godshall et al. , 1976) , dealt with GATE Intercomparison data, specifically with an analysis of the average bias of each data set for each of the participating ships. This report contains the results of an analysis of the data obtained during the three GATE observation Phases, and, again, main emphasis is given to the determination of average biases of each variable measured on each ship. These analyses have been carried out as part of the tasks of the GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center (CSDC) , the function of which, as well as of all other GATE Subprogram Data Centers, is defined in GATE Report No. 20 (WMO , 1976). This report also represents the final CSDC product pertaining to the ship surface data sets. To date, the CSDC has placed in the World Data Center archives (WDC-A, Asheville, North Carolina, USA, and WDC-B , Moscow, USSR) two data sets: the Intercomparison data set and the Phase data set. Both are described in appendix B. In addition to NOAA Technical Report EDS 17 and this report, the CSDC has published NOAA Technical Report EDS 18 (Seguin and Sabol, 1976), which contains tabulated precipitation amounts derived from WMO observations on each ship. Appendix A of this report updates both of the previous reports by revising earlier bias calculations and presenting the Phase precipitation data for the ship Bidassoa . The CSDC has analyzed and validated ship surface data for the fixed stations (A/B-, B- , and C-scale ships) only. A-scale and roving ships have not been considered. 2. VALIDATION OF THE GATE PHASE DATA Two surface data sets were acquired by the A/B-, B-, and C-scale ships during the three Phases of GATE: Type 1 observations, which were made by automatic sensing and recording systems; and Type 2 observations, which were made using standard WMO marine observation procedures and sensors. The Type 1 sensors were typically mounted on special bow booms of the kind described by Seguin et al. (1977). On the ship Meteor , Type 1 data were acquired by sensors mounted on a meteorological profile buoy rather than a ship bow boom. A brief description of these sensors and their heights above sea level are given in NOAA Technical Report EDS 17. The surface data were processed by the individual GATE National Processing Centers and sent to the World Data Centers as well as to the CSDC on magnetic tape in time-series form. The Type 2 WMO observations were hourly. Included in each data record were pressure, temperature, wind velocity, cloud amount and type, present weather, and other standard synoptic meteorological variables. The Type 1 observations varied from ship to ship in their frequency. Appendix B gives the time resolution of these data and the variables included. The pressures, dry-bulb temperatures, wet-bulb temperatures, sea- surface temperatures, wind speeds, and wind directions were reviewed and validated at the CSDC on an interactive graphics and minicomputer system. This system, which has been described in detail by Anderson and Crayton (1978) , enables the analyst to plot time series of each meteorological variable on a TV screen in color and to visually review each data value. Multiple variables can be plotted on the screen simultaneously for comparison. Quality data flags can be added "by the press of a button" to the data for points that are deemed questionable or erroneous. Individual data points were deemed valid if they appeared reasonable in relation to values immediately adjacent to them in time, if they appeared reasonable based upon other variables including present weather, and if they compared favorably with data of the same variable measured by a second system in cases where both Type 1 and Type 2 observations were available. One of four flags was assigned to each data value: 0, 7, 8, or 9. A flag of means the data value is good, a flag of 7 means it is questionable, a flag of 8 means it is obviously bad, and a flag of 9 means the data value is missing. These flags were copied to the archive tape discussed in appendix B. The present weather, visibility, and cloud information in the Type 2 WMO observations were examined automatically by computer for consistency. The tests were developed from procedures adopted by the GATE Synoptic Subprogram (Parker, 1976). Appendix B lists the tests performed on the data. The greatest number of errors occurred because missing observations were recorded on computer punch cards as zeros, which in the synoptic code have specific meanings other than missing data for these variables. The ship positions, which were included as part of the WMO records, were also edited by computer. There were few errors in these data, and most could be corrected by examining adjacent positions in time. Appendix C gives the average positions. Further validation was carried out by computing Phase means for each variable, correcting the variable using the Intercomparison biases given in NOAA Technical Report EDS 17, and plotting the means on charts containing the A/B-, B-, and C-scale arrays. The charts were then analyzed and the biases of individual ships examined in light of the mean fields. These analyses and the resulting biases are discussed in section 3. Finally, diurnal variations as well as Phase variations were decomposed into their principal modes of variation or principal components by the method of Asymptotic Singular Decomposition (ASD) developed by Jalickee (1977). This method, which is closely related to the method of empirical orthogonal functions (Lorenz, 1956), made it possible to compare the principal components from ship to ship. 3. PHASE MEANS One of the main goals of the CSDC analysis was the estimation of biases in pressures, temperatures, and wind velocities. To arrive at these estimates, averages were calculated for each Phase and were adjusted using the Intercomparison biases (Godshall et al., 1976). The adjusted averages were plotted on maps showing the A/B-, B-, and C-scale ship arrays and were then analyzed to generate smooth, reasonable fields. The averaging periods for each Phase were chosen so that most of the ships were on station for most of the time. Table 1 shows these periods. Appendix C gives the actual dates and times individual ships were on station, Because the Gilliss was off station for half of Phase II, averages were calculated for a short Phase II in order to assess the ship's data biases. Table 1. — Time periods for which the Phase data were averaged Phase Beginning Date Time (GMT) Ending Date Time (GMT) I June 29 1100 July 15 1700 II Aug. 1 0800 Aug. 15 0000 Il(short) Aug. 6 2100 Aug. 15 0000 III Aug. 31 0900 Sept. 18 0100 By linear interpolation between the Intercomparisons, biases corresponding to the center of the averaging periods given in table 1 were used to correct the Phase averages. Of the five Intercomparison (IC) periods listed in table 2, IC 1, IC 2, and IC 3B were used as references. The Researcher Kollsman Type 1 pressure data and the temperature and wind velocity Type 1 data obtained on the Meteor buoy were considered the reference data sets. T ^ ie Korolov Type 2 data served as the reference for IC A1A; the Musson Type 2 pressure data and the Oceanographer Type 1 bow boom temperature and wind velocity data served as the reference for IC 3A. These data sets were chosen on the basis of their stability during the Intercomparison periods. It was necessary to adjust the results of IC A1A and IC 3A to those of 1, 2, and 3B in order to have a basis for comparison throughout the three latter periods. The Korolov participated in IC 2 and IC 3B with the Researcher and Meteor . Based upon the Korolov biases during these two periods, an estimate was made of what its biases would have been if it had been compared with the Researcher and Meteor during IC A1A. The biases of the Priboy and Okean, both of which were compared with the Korolov during IC A1A, were adjusted by the amount the Korolov data differed from the Researcher and Meteor buoy data during IC 2 and IC 3B. The reference data sets from IC 3A were adjusted similarly. Again, based upon the biases of the Musson and ce ano gr ap he r data during IC 1 and IC 2 , an estimate of the biases for these ships was calculated as if they had been compared with the Researcher and the Meteor buoy. The biases of the other ships that participated in IC 3A and were compared with the Musson and Oceanographer were adjusted for the biases of these two ships. Table 2. — Intercomparison periods and locations .,- . Lat. N. Long. W. Intercomparison ,, . /, \ Dates (deg) (deg) 1 ALA 2 3A 3B Although the pressure, dry-bulb temperature, and wet-bulb temperature sensors were at different heights on the ships, no adjustments were made in the data for these differences. For temperatures, such a height correction would typically be less than 0.1°C. It was assumed that each nation had corrected its pressures to sea level according to the GATE ' 13.0 21.0 June 17 to 19 5.0 44.0 June 17 to 19 7.7 22.0 Aug. 16 to 18 13.0 21.0 Sept. 21 to 23 12.0 21.0 Sept. 21 to 23 International Data Management Plan (WMO, 1974) . For the pressure data sets that were not corrected to sea level, the pressure bias due to the sensor height was considered part of the instrument bias. Only the wind speeds were adjusted for sensor height so that they could be compared with the winds measured by the Meteor buoy. These corrections were needed to properly interpret the biases for IC 1, IC 2, and IC 3, because of the varying average wind speeds (Godshall et al . , 1976). Winds were corrected to 10 m using the logarithmic wind law. Stress in this relationship was computed from the bulk aerodynamic formula with a drag coefficient, C = 1.5 x 10~ 3 . D Most of the wind speeds were measured by sensors mounted on the ships ' foremasts between 18 and 36 m above sea level. Unfortunately, there is no one satisfactory scheme to adjust the winds with height. Recent research by Kidwell and Seguin (1978) , based on data from identical wind speed sensors mounted on the bow booms and foremasts of the four U.S. ships Researcher , Gilliss , Dallas , and Oceanographer , has shown that wind speeds do not increase as rapidly with height (from boom to mast) as the log wind law, uncorrected for atmospheric stability, would predict. In addition, the rate of increase seems to be ship dependent. These differences are probably associated with the superstructure of the ship, the relative wind direction, and the sensor location on the mast. Further, the atmosphere during GATE was highly unstable at times, with air-sea temperature differences greater than 1°C and wind speeds less than 1ms . For these conditions most corrections to the log wind law are inadequate. For all of these reasons, the neutral stability log wind law used in adjusting the wind speeds to 10 m, to conform with the Meteor buoy data, represents only a first approximation. No adjustments were applied to the wind direction data. The absolute wind directions measured on the Meteor buoy changed from one Intercomparison to the next. The National Processing Center of the Federal Republic of Germany considers the buoy's absolute wind directions correct to within 5 . In addition, in attempting to determine the bias of the Korolov and Ocean - ographer relative to the Meteor buoy so that the wind direction biases of IC A1A and IC 3A, respectively, could be properly interpreted, it was found that the wind direction biases of these ships relative to the buoy were too unstable for any conclusions to be drawn. Once the Phase mean values for each variable had been calculated for the time periods given in table 1, they were corrected for the Intercomparison biases, plotted on charts, and analyzed as scalar fields. These smoothed analyzed fields were then compared with the average uncorrected Phase mean values to arrive at estimates of the biases of each data set for the Phase. For data sets that showed sensor drift or significant changes in calibrations, these bias estimates represent only a first approximation. The ships Vanguard and Hecla did not participate in any of the Inter- comparisons. For this reason, their average Phase values have not been corrected for either sensor height or any IC bias. The Planet , Bidossoa , and Fay participated only in one IC (3A, 3B, and 3A, respectively) and their biases were used to adjust the Phase data before analysis. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the ship positions for the A/B-, B-, and C- scale arrays during Phases I, II, and III, respectively. On the charts contained in the sections that follow, the mean values given correspond to the ship names shown in figures 1, 2, and 3. Where one station was occupied by two ships, two values are plotted. Several of the B- and C- scale ships acquired both Type 1 and Type 2 data. The Type 1 values are shown in parentheses. CD o •H •U •H CO O CL •H 0) 43 i CO CO a •H CO cu CO CO 4= I I cu M o c (O OJ u o CO a o •H •P •H CD O P. U •H CU X! 4J H3 C CO to (i •H ,£ CO CU CO I CN CU H 3 60 •H Pn QJ O > >> co C o •H 4-1 •H CO o Pi n > •H o cu rs .d r-j 4-1 ^ id O fi s_ CO a. CO PU o •H i/i 43 l/l CO CD CO 43 I I * CD g 60 •H Pn 10 3.1 Pressure Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the mean pressure analyses for Phases I, II, and III, respectively. The equatorial trough seen here migrates northward and is located just to the north of the wind asymptote of confluence (cf. figs 19, 20, and 21, sec. 3.6). Phase III had the largest north-south pressure gradient, as the charts show. The Type 1 average pressure data, given in parentheses in figures 4, 5, and 6, were derived from the Kollsman pressure sensor on the Researcher , Gilliss , and Dallas and from the Rosemount barometer on the Oceanographer . All Type 1 and Type 2 sensors are discussed briefly in NOAA Technical Report EDS 17 (Godshall et al., 1976). Table 3 lists the biases of the pressure data derived from these mean fields and the uncorrected Phase averages. These biases represent the corrections necessary to adjust the uncorrected Phase mean pressures to the smoothed scalar fields and are, therefore, first approximations to the pressure biases. The results show that the average pressure biases were remarkably stable. Most of the variations are less than 0.2 mb from Phase to Phase. Both the Dallas Kollsman and the Oceanographer Rosemount sensors show changes during the experiment. The Quadra 's microbarograph data biases also vary noticeably. A few of the ships have large biases, but these are stable from Phase to Phase, suggesting that the data were not corrected to sea level properly. The Gilliss was off station for half of Phase II. The bias given for the Gilliss Phase II data was derived from the short Phase II period (see table 1). The Vanguard 's sensor was changed midway through Phase III. The Phase III correction shown for this ship represents an average one for the two sensors. 11 en P CO CO CD U a s cu e H 0) CO CO ^ Ph I cu M P too •H 12 CO CD u CO CO CD U a CD CO cd £1 Ph I m CD u •H 13 co 0) u CO CO cu u a c « a) 6 cu CO X VO U M •H 14 Table 3. — ,'Pressure biases (corrections necessary to adjust uncorrected Phase mean pressures to smoothed scalar fields) Ship Phase I Phase II Phase III Type 1 data (automatic) Researcher 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Gilliss -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 Dallas -0.3 -0.6 -1.2 Oceanographer -0.1 +0.4 +0.4 Quadra -1.2 -1.9 -1.8 Meteor +1.2 +1.0 1.0 Planet — — -0.4 Type 2 data (WMO ) Researcher -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 Gilliss -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 Dallas -0.5 -0.4 -0.6 Oceanographer -0.5 -0.7 -0.7 Quadra +0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Meteor -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 Planet — — -0.3 Fay — — 0.0 Korolov -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 Okean -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 Priboy -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 Vize -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 Krenkel -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 Zubov +0.1 -0.1 0.0 Muss on 0.0 -0.1 0.0 Poryv -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Bidassoa — — +0.5 Vanguard +0.1 0.0 -1.3 Hecla — — -0.3 15 3.2 Dry-Bulb Temperature The mean dry-bulb temperature analyses for Phases I, II, and III are shown in figures 7, 8, and 9, respectively. Phases II and III have very little temperature gradient compared with Phase I. The warm temperatures at the Poryv on the Phase I chart are consistent with the warm sea-surface temperatures for Phase I (fig. 13, sec. 3.4) and the Phase I pressure trough (fig. 4, sec. 3.1). The cooler temperatures located over the southern half of the B-scale array are most probably a reflection of the pronounced convective overturning and the large amount of precipitation in this area during Phase I, Where both Type 1 and Type 2 information is available, the analyses are based upon the Type 1 data. Table 4 gives the biases of the dry-bulb temperature data derived from the mean fields and the Phase averages. The Type 1, and many of the Type 2, average biases exhibit 0.2°C or less variation from Phase to Phase. Some of the data, notably the Type 2 data for the Gilliss , Dallas , Oceanographer , and Vanguard , have large Phase-to-Phase biases and the biases themselves are large. This is due in part to heating of the ships' decks, which modified the temperature where the observations were taken. The Gilliss Phase II biases were derived from the special short Phase II analysis (see table 1) . 16 CD CD ■u CO H CU I" CU ■u 3 I CU CO CO Xi ru I I cu •H 17 CO cu u 4-1 rt u cu I" 3 I s cu e cu CO CO I I 00 cu u 3 t>0 18 CO CD U d 4-1 CO 1-1 QJ CD ■P 3 I U T3 CD CO CO £1 P-> I I cr> CD U a •H Fn 19 Table 4. — Dry-bulb temperature biases (corrections necessary to adjust uncor- rected Phase mean dry-bulb temperatures to smoothed scalar fields) Ship Phase I Phase II Phase III Type 1 data (automatic ) Researcher -0.1 0.0 0.0 Gilliss -0.2 0.0 -0.1 Dallas 0.0 0.0 +0.1 Oceanographer +0.1 0.0 +0.1 Quadra 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Meteor 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Planet — — +0.1 Type 2 data (WMO) Researcher -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 Gilliss -0.3 0.0 -0.2 Dallas -0.6 -0.9 -0.5 Oceanographer -0.6 -0.7 -0.4 Quadra -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 Meteor 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Planet — — -0.2 Fay — — +0.1 Korolov 0.0 0.0 0.0 Okean -0.1 -0.1 0.0 Priboy -0.1 -0.2 0.0 Vize -0.1 +0.1 +0.1 Krenkel 0.0 +0.1 +0.1 Zubov -0.2 -0.1 0.0 Muss on -0.1 +0.1 -0.1 Poryv 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Bidassoa — — -0.3 Vanguard -0.5 -0.1 -0.7 Hecla — — -0.4 20 3.3 Wet-Bulb Temperature Phases I, II, and III mean wet-bulb temperature fields are shown In figures 10, 11, and 12. As in the case of the dry-bulb temperatures, these analyses were based on the Type 1 wet-bulb temperatures when both Type 1 and Type 2 information was available. Note that the highest wet-bulb temperatures coincide with the asymptote of confluence during Phases I and II, Table 5 lists the biases of the average wet-bulb temperatures for Phases I, II, and III. The ship wet-bulb temperatures were generally higher than those measured by the Meteor buoy both during the Inter- comparisons and the Phases, although some of the Type 1 wet-bulb temperatures recorded aboard ship averaged only 0.1°C higher than the buoy data. There is very little variation from Phase to Phase, typically 0.1°C to 0.2°C. Although deck heating does influence wet-bulb temperature measurements, the effect is not as strong as in the case of dry-bulb temperatures. 21 u CO 3 ,r> I 0) a 0) 6 CO P-* I I (1) U too •H Pn 22 to cd u 4-1 CO U CD §■ -l u o o cu CO CO I I cu •H Fn 37 CO c o ■H o . rH H CO •H 4-i CO O P 4J /— N in O F-i o i-\ S on on o t-\ rH cu in o 6 CO P 00 oo st CO o oo o LT) rH o CO O o ON O in rO O rH O st O O m o O LO ON O CN 00 00 o r^ CM • • • • • • m co m m eg CN t-» CO CO I I 00 on H CN in H H 1 1 rH rH rH | rH rH r-\ o m O m m O O o CO rH st m CN CO O CN CM CM st r^ vo vO CN m • • • CO o o m o m n o CN T~\ CM o rH r-> rH rH rH O rH O o o O m CN CO st on on vO O o o o rH CN m T-\ CN 00 vO CN 42 CO 4-1 r-4 3 (3 Q o • 3 CU rH 42 CO H •H CO P O 1 •H H 4J C o o a) 6 •H H 4-) c o I 1 4-1 $ o o 8 •H H a) 4-1 cO O CO CM O O CO CM rH O H m O m o o rH CO o i-i . H H rH rH oo r» • • o o cm r^ o ^r> m H H o m o o CM o o o 1 rH rH 1 o m m m m o rH m CM m ^JD i--. 00 o rH o o o rH rH H O o u co o u o «4-l a) u co cu a) Q <3- CO o o o m o m O CM rH CO rH O O rH ON m rH rH rH ON oo rH cyi rH CM CN CM CO CM CTi CT\ 49 APPENDIX B Archived Data Two data sets were prepared by the CSDC according to the final plan given in GATE Report No. 20 (WMO, 1976). They are now archived at World Data Centers A and B (WDC-A, National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina, USA, and WDC-B , Moscow, USSR, respectively). They were derived from data generated by individual National Processing Centers (NPC's) and include data that were recorded nearly continuously and automatically (Type 1) and the standard WMO marine observations (Type 2). One set consists of the Intercomparison data; the other, of the Phase data. Both contain the high time resolution Type 1 data and the low resolution Type 2 data. Tables Bl through B4 list the NPC input tapes by WDC-A GATE Data Catalog numbers and tape numbers. Intercomparison Data The Intercomparison data include pressure, dry-bulb temperature, wet- bulb temperature, sea-surface temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. These data were validated by comparing them with reasonable maximum and minimum meteorological values, by examining distributions of the data, and by comparing bivariate and time- series plots of similar variables measured by different ships and by the Meteor buoy or by a reference ship (see NOAA Technical Report EDS 17) . The data were copied onto the archive tape in two formats: one for the low resolution data, and one for the high resolution data. The former is contained on a single file; the latter, on six files. The files on the tape are given in table B5 . In addition to the above variables, the longitude and latitude of the ship positions have been added to each file. For IC 1, IC 2, and IC 3A, the drifting positions of the Oceanographer were used as reference. The Researcher positions were used for IC 3B. Intercomparison A1A was held at 5.0° N. lat. and 44.0° W. long. The low resolution data, including the WMO marine observations and the supplementary automatic data, have been grouped by Intercomparison period, ship, date, and Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). The high resolution data are grouped by variable, Intercomparison period, ship, and time. A few ships used two sensors to measure each variable and both sets are contained within the files. The order of the ships on the archive tape by Intercomparison period is shown in table B6 . 50 o CO •H u co id a o cu CO O ■M S3 CU CO cu a CO CO 4-1 H CO -a c o CO •H !-l CO M a o s iH o cO o ■U m CO cu C_> m +j o e CO S3 M 4-> CO 4-1 PI p cu o CO ■rl W ■P H cO 3 «j 4-) i— i O CO O T3 CO < cu 1 m CJ> £ § o hJ H W cu H 4-1 42 cu CO CO H CO 4-t CO c 3 PU •H C/} pq pq H H H H tH tH O H iH i-H tH tH tH CO O iH O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 1 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 1 CO CO CO 3 PQ 4 iH o cu 43 4*i 3 c N cu C ^ > J-l • o C o & « M-l O CO CO CO CU 43 •H o « U £ 4*1 M Pm w PM s O PM cu N •rl > P CO O • U CU MM T3 4-> o CO CU J-l 3 S PM en u cu X Pi- M co CU u 43 CO bt. o CO O 5-i CO CO C CO CO •H CO CU CO tH CU CO 13 tH o 0) •H •H o PS pq O 4-1 CD 0) c0 c H CO iH -H CO Pm P a 51 w eg W cu (3 O CO •H M CO T3 P. O ■H Pi cu 525 CD cu CO p. 4-1 CO «0 H T3 e O CO j •H n CO Pi OC e O o i-H o CO n ■P CU CO 4-1 U • c o H CO 4-1 s c CO ■U o P CO CO CU rC3 CO •H H CO > CO CU r-l ■a •H CO > CO P CN O i-H CO O CO CN CM o CO CO CO o CO r-l CO CO CU u 3 CO /~v co ji 0) CU P ^ !-i CO S P. U 4-1 00 CO ^ O !-i i-H M CU t-i CO P 3 ,0 O »— ' CU EC H T3 •H (-1 0) ,e p CO )-i OC O CO CO S u T3 cu cO CO o 3 3 o © oi CO 5-1 CO iH CN • O CO CO u o CU 4-1 CU S3 CN CM O CM 00 M o CU 4-1 CM O .-H CM O CO CO o CO co CU M 3 CO CO CO CU CO CU H CU H /~ \ rQ u ^—^ rO M CO p M CO CU CO •H CU CO •H U rQ >-i 4-1 u rC n 3 -H CO P. 3 •H CO CO 00 > CU CO 00 > CO «H o CO •H CU O H M CU P H !-l v-' 4 cu 5-1 v— ' H PM Pm > > > too > > CO CO cO cd > CO CO >> a 3 {^ a C H •H •H H fi •H •H ri 6 e H •H 6 3 i 3 6 i o o o o 1 o O W CO H W CO .H H CO 4-1 a) 0) o CD p. CO H CO CN CO CM CO cm CO CM H N -cf CO m CO U CD 03 PL 03 a cd CD r( H Ph CD S-i 4-> CD CO M r< 3 CD 03 pi, 03 T) e cd d CD >-l »H H Pm tS CD £ CD CD CD rJ PL U ^N rl /— N U 3 CO 3 P 3 H 3 4J -i £ CO t-l rQ CO r) 3 3 o U 3 •H U 3 •H U CD CO 03 u CD 03 toO CD 03 too CD fr 03 T3 CO cO 1 T3 03 •H P. T3 03 •H a TJ id CD PJ CD ^3 c CD P e B CD P 6 a CD U •H U ^ / CD •r) U ^— ' CD •H U -t tod O e cO ai a O o 3 CO CO CO M u 4-1 4-1 l-i M U O o CD CD T3 X) id CD CD 3 3 CO CO cO 4-1 4-> cO cO 3 3 3 CD CD rH rH CD- o^ cH X S Pm Pm 54 Table B5 . — Files on the CSDC surface meteorology Intercomparison tape Tape No. File Description B79217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Test file Tape header file Low resolution data High resolution files of: Pressure Dry-bulb temperature Wet-bulb temperature Sea-surface temperature Wind-direction Wind speed Trailer file 55 Table B6. — Order of data on archive tape Ship Code Supplementary data Researcher Gilliss Dallas Oceanographer Meteor Quadra Musson Korolov Prof. Vize Ernst Krenkel Prof. Zubov Okean Priboy Poryv Researcher Dallas Oceanographer Meteor Quadra Musson Acad. Korolov Prof. Vize Prof. Zubov Okean Priboy Researcher Gilliss Oceanographer Meteor Quadra Musson Acad. Korolov Prof. Vize Ernst Krenkel Prof. Zubov Planet Okean Priboy Bidassoa Poryv H.J.W. Fay Intercomparison 1 WTER WEWP NPCR WTEP DBBH CGDN EREA UHQS UPUI EREU UMFW ERE I EREH ERES Intercomparison 2 WTER NPCR WTEP DBBH CGDN EREA UHQS UPUI UMFW ERE I EREH Intercomparison 3 WTER WEWP WTEP DBBH CGDN EREA UHQS UPUI EREU UMFW DSCZ EREI EREH FBEM ERES WZFS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No 56 Phase Data The low resolution Phase data placed on the CSDC archive tape include the variables listed in table B7. All pressure, temperature, and wind velocity values were reviewed by .means of a computer and interactive graphics system that enabled the CSDC analyst to indicate erroneous and questionable data by assigning quality flags. For the ships on which both standard WMO marine observations and automatic observations were made by boom and mast sensors, the data were validated by comparing them. For the ships on which only WMO observations were made, validation was accomplished by examining the data in relation to variables on either side of the data value in question and in relation to other meteorological variables. Each data value was assigned a flag of 0, 7, 8, or 9, where means the value is good, 7 means it is questionable, 8 means it is obviously bad, and 9 means the data value is missing. Table B7. — Variables included in the low resolution data Time and date Ship call letters Latitude and longitude Pressure* Air temperature* Wet-bulb temperature* Sea-surface temperature* Wind speed* Wind direction* Present weather Visibility Cloud cover Cloud amount Convective code *Derived from the bulk data for the Meteor , Planet , and Fay . The present weather, visibility, and cloud information was also edited by computer, and inconsistencies were flagged on the archive tape. Each synoptic observation can contain a maximum of 10 different codes of the codes defined in table B8. The Synoptic Subprogram and German Weather Service procedures were used as guidelines in developing this flagging scheme, by which a limited amount of checking of temperatures, humidities, and winds was done. The ship latitude and longitude positions have also been validated, and obviously bad positions have been replaced by more reasonable ones. There are 41 files on the CSDC archive tape, as shown in table B9. Files 3 through 21 consist of the low resolution observations. Each file contains all data for a particular ship for the three Phases of GATE when available. For the low resolution data, fixed start and stop times were used 57 for each Phase (see table BIO), and missing data, therefore, often appear at the beginning and end of each set of these data. The high resolution data are available for all variables except present weather, visibility and cloud information. The data were reviewed on the computer and interactive graphics system, as were the low resolution data, and flags of 0, 7, 8, and 9 were assigned. The archive tape contains 19 files of these data at the time resolution supplied by the NPC (see tables B2 and B4) . Each file is devoted to a single ship for a single Phase in a time series format. Each logical record contains each variable for the time of the observations. General Archive Tape Format These tapes have been written according to the specifications in GATE Report No. 13, Part 1, appendix E (WMO, 1974). Each data set has been written on 9-track, 800 BPI, odd-parity tape in EBCDIC, with the data blocked into fixed-length physical records of 1,920 characters. Each tape consists of six types of physical records separated by inter-record gaps and blocked into files (separated by end-of-file marks, EOFs ; also called tape marks) in the following sequence: Test file EOF Tape header record EOF Type 1 file header record \ „ . , . , , . c .- „ , „ r . _._ , t Meteorological data file No. 1 Type 2 file header record J Data EOF Type 1 file header record \ x . . . n , £ . n XT „/ r „ .... . , ,, r Meteorological data file No. 2 Type 2 file header record J Data EOF (Additional meteorological and radiation data files) EOF End-of-tape record EOF EOF Figures Bl and B2 give examples of the TYPE 1 and Type 2 data file header records for the low and high resolution data records. 58 Table B8. — Definitions of flags for present weather, visibility, cloud information, pressure, temperature, and winds Code Test Explanation 1 Present weather An unlikely present weather event validity check report. The following events (given in synoptic code) are consid- ed unlikely: 8, 22-24, 26, 30-39, 56, 57, 66-79, 83-88, 93 and 94. 2 Thunderstorm condition Present weather indicates a test thunderstorm but cumulonimbus clouds are not reported. 3 Total sky cover amount Total sky cover is above (i.e. test N>NHIGH) or below (i.e. NNHIGH) or below (i.e. N^ NLOW) bounds established for the corresponding present weather. The bounds are given above. Visibility test Visibility reported is above (i.e. W>VHIGH) or below (i.e. VV. N <_ 6, C =7 H The high cloud is reported as overcast cirrostratus but sky cover is not carried as overcast. 14 N = 8, C T = C„ = 0, L M and C„ + 1,2,3,7 H The high cloud cover reported cannot occur as an overcast or the sky cover is in error. 15 16 N - 9 and N ^ 9 h N = 9 and C # Sky cover and low sky cover should both be reported as obscured. A low cloud is reported with an obscured sky. 17 N - 9 and C ± M A middle cloud is reported with an obscured sky. 18 N = 9 and C 4 H A high cloud is reported with an obscured sky. 19 N = 9 and h ^ An obscured sky is reported with a non zero cloud height. 20 21 N = 9 and VV >. 94 N, = and C T ^ h L The visibility reported should be obstructed or restricted for the obscured sky cover reported. A low cloud was reported with no low sky cover. 61 Table B8. — Definitions of flags for present weather, visibility, cloud information, pressure, temperature, and winds (continued) Code Test Explanation 22 \ = and C M 4 A middle cloud was reported with no low sky cover. 23 1 - N, ^ 8 and A low sky cover was reported with no low or middle cloud type 24 7 * N h ^ 8, The low sky cover is inconsistent with the number of cloud layers reported. 25 \ = 9 and C L 4 A low cloud is reported with an obscured sky. 26 27 N, = 9 and C T 4 n L N = 9 and C ± h H A middle cloud is reported with an obscured sky. A high cloud is reported with an obscured sky. 28 N, = 9 and h + The reported cloud height is too high for an obscuring phenomena. 29 N = 9 and W * 94 Visibility and low sky cover are inconsistent . 30 31 N < \ (^ 4 and C M ± and N = N n The low sky cover exceeds the total sky cover. The total sky cover amount equal to the amount of low cloud is inconsistent wth two cloud layers reported. 32 N > N and \ C L = C H = ° C + M The total sky cover exceeding the low sky cover is inconsistent with the single cloud layer, O,, reported. 33 N > N, and a ^M ' C H " ° The total sky cover exceeding the low sky cover is inconsistent with the single cloud layer, C. , reported. 34 h = 9 and C L i The height of the low cloud reported is too high. 62 Table B8. — Definitions of flags for present weather, visibility, cloud information, pressure, temperature, and winds (continued) Code Test Explanation 35 h ^ 9, C =0, and Li - S.* 2 ' 7 The height of the cloud base is inconsistent with the absence of low clouds, thick altostratus, or nimbostratus. 51 Present weather, temperature and dew point check (T - T > 2°C) dry DP The reported present weather is fog> which is inconsistent with the temperature-dew point difference. 52 Present weather, temperature and dew point check (T - T > 4°C) dry DP The reported present weather is ground fog, which is inconsistent with the temperature-dew point difference. 53 Present weather and relative humidity check (R.H. 1 80%) The reported present weather, dry haze, is inconsistent with the relative humidity, which is greater than 80%. 54 dd = and ff + The wind speed is not zero; therefore, the reported wind direction should be 360. 55 dd t and ff - The wind speed is zero so that the wind direction should be reported as 0. 56 /AP/ 2 3 mb The pressure change since the last observation is excessive. 57 /AT dry/ -> 7°C The dry-bulb temperature change since the last observation is excessive. 58 T , < T . dry wet The wet-bulb temperature exceeds the dry- bulb temperature. 59 /AT J >5°C wet The wet- bulb temperature change since the last observation is excessive. 60 /AT Dp / >5°C The dew-point temperature change since the last observation is excessive. 63 Table B8. — Definitions of flags for present weather, visibility, cloud information, pressure, temperature, and winds (continued) Code Test Explanation 61 R.H. < 65% The relative humidity, based upon the dry-and wet-bulb temperatures is too low for the GATE area. i'O 62 T^p - T gea >_ 1 The dew-point temperature exceeds the sea surface temperature by at least 1°C. Symbols N = total sky cover N, = low sky cover W = visibility C = low cloud type J_j CL, = middle cloud type C^ = high cloud type h = height of the low cloud T, = dry- bulb temperature dry T = wet- bulb temperature wet T = sea-surface temperature sea T np = dew-point temperature R.H. = relative humidity dd = wind direction ff = wind speed P = pressure 64 Table B9. — CSDC Phase archive tape files File No. Description 1 Test file 2 Tape header file Low resolution data A/B -scale ship s 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Acad. Korolov Poryv E. Krenkel Prof. Zubov Muss on Okean Priboy B- scale ships 10 Meteor 11 Prof. Vize 12 Vanguard 13 Quandra 14 Oceanographer 15 Researcher 16 Bidassoa 17 Gilliss C- scale ships 18 Planet 19 Dallas 20 Fay. 21 Hecla High resolution data 22 Researcher (Phase I) 23 (Phase II) 24 " (Phase III) 25 Gilliss (Phase I) 26 (Phase II) 27 " (Phase III) Table B9. — CSDC Phase archive tape files (continued) 65 File No. Description High resolution data (continued) Dallas (Phase I) " (Phase II) " (Phase III Oceanographer (Phase I) (Phase II) " (Phase III) Quadra (Phase I) " (Phase II) " (Phase III) Meteor (Phase I) " (Phase II) (Phase III) 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Planet (Phase III) End of tape Table BIO. — Start and stop times for the low resolution Phase data Phase Date (1974) Start Time (GMT) Date (1974) Stop Time (GMT) I II III June 26 July 28 Aug. 30 0000 0000 0000 July 16 Aug . 16 Sept. 19 2300 2300 2300 66 CO •JU t— < 00 a UJ z r> o o o o o c\j rn o h- h- 0n a> on on o> CJ o OO CJ o — < o CM o LU I o < >M rO u< cr> o> cj> at un un cr> on U"> ON o> a> j> un on a> cr> on • a> o ~> on on on on • a> un > on us on on o> un un UN un jn un un cr> cr> u» un o> on o» \- s o> o> cr> a u^ jn en u> o> un un u> o-> on on on a* un a^ o> cr> o> on cjn a> un un r- un o* on a» UN o cr> u> lt> a> on a> cr> un ON CJN "^ ON UN a on on _) o> ON a QC cr> O ON LO ,0 I s - oo On O O O O O O O O Q O z o a: t- O) UN ON ON 0> ON ON CJN UN ON ON ON ON Q\ 0> ON UN o> cr> r- on ON ON o> on ON On UN 0^ UN QN ON UN U> UN ON ON S O H iM i<"i «f ift >U N (O U> O h nl nl 4" rl rH H H H H H H H H W I'M fJ (\) (M ooooooooooooooo tH :\i n j- la vO h- oo un ooooooooo o o o o o o o o o UJ X < co o o o o o o o o o UN ^) UN '.M UN -O UN O ON n}- to on r» HO' Jl ON. 0^ —i .-H H *H UN U> UN ON ON UN UN UN un 0^ JN ON UN 0> o 0> O ON o •• o ■o ^ U 1 " u^ UN UN UN •-H at >u cc s> UJ JD X o I- < CD uj 5: O oO CL o •J) o >- LU _J —I n u_ o X UJ X o t- UJ K- « o •-• UJ +-* _J »~« UJ t/) a z oo < • *• 00 /) (X. Q O LU UJ UJ OO Q a 2? 3 ► Q vO Z. uj o < UJ s o. a 5: 00 uJ »- I— 1 •• X '^) - r> 13 CO CO i_) UJ uj aC a: o. < a uj ► X O oo U. —» Ul CO 'J5 _J UJ > < UJ X a: < to CO < o < UN > oo Xi UJ z Q n JJ Z U, J H M LL UJ -O UJ X OJ M (/) < -^. •• \- Q < -• n -J < «T > >- ^0 U. < OO »- u < or: "3 O u < < a _J l3 UJ -Jan < ►-« _J UJ x V- o O J> o O ON o o^ O a> O ON rn a> fr P^ ON ON ON O ^J ON -^ r-k r-H rH r-t ,-< -H r-i t-H O ►-< O CO iJU ULJ _J CO <— < LL X O. < I- LU < h- Q < O O0 »-H IJJ X X < a =D < CO Q UJ I- LU LU _J a. o_ oo -4 5: i- o o LU ar. u. a < z -J LL UJ a d _j < _i LL < < > QC UJ LU > CO - lu k- a a k < a LU Of Z. LU O O CO O Si < Q X> 2 a uj _l LU O CO < LU < < co UJ UJ UJ X > t-4 OO a z. o_ LU >- -J t-t -J o < JN u> U 1 " UN JN UN u^ UN ON J> UN ON U> Us u> 'JN >JN UN 'JN J. UN c^ UN ON UN UN UN UN UN ■' )N UN u> UN CJN 0" 1 ON u> u^ UN 0- J-> o- u> ON UN O o o o o o m o o o o o o "5 o o o o o o o o o J J a o o or o o o o O CO uj a Q LU CJ) CJ Ci LU UJ s: 5" a: 1- a ?: s: CO ;» s: > X LU t-4 ."5 >- X a a o I— UN 2: UN 1— X 0» X UN < UN >— i CJN < .X o< OO UN a UN i— U^ _J o u> o UN o UN o UN o o UN o UN o a> o u> o 0^ UN CJN UN <~t 0> o UN c\l UN UN UN OS o J> o UN .-4 <\J C\J r\j c\l cxi 0^1 c\l CM CM g •H ■P H O CO QJ & O CO H3 Li O U a) Li Li QJ TJ cfl CU •H CM 0) CL H a) a PQ a) L M •H 67 o .-i cm m -t in vo h- •— I rH -H .— I <— ( >H • 4 r-l oooooooo co to a: ix 1JU UJ lU co 0> O H tM (f) + i-H -< CM c\| CM (M CM o o o o o o o CO af. LU in ^ I s - oo o> o .-h <\j io o h N m <)■ O o ON ON a> o ON on cr> o on on o o^ on cr on en o o on o X n u> o a> o> o> o> on o ON o ON ON U> ON ON ON ON o o X ON ON o ON u> ON ON ON ON ON UN ON o X o ON UN o 0> ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON o o X o -0 CM ON ON o ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON o o> u> o« ON ON ON ON ON ON o ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON o ON ON ON UN ON ON ON ON ON o ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON o^ o cd 4-1 CO c o •H o o o o o o o o rH o o o rH o O CO LU UJ or. o LU Q LO — i o _J UJ -j a h- o < u_ x {— CO < 3 O -H O CO •H CM LU On LU o « o JJ o o o in I.U ex X) t— < lx UJ o_ IU t-H < On ex" Qn ►-< on in CM CM ON X ON on or on UN O ON ON O UN UN O UN UN O On ON ON ON H >- .H CO _J _l -I X < CO X - I- a: z X •-. O rH (X CM UJ UN < _J LL X h- C0 i— • H- UN LU ON I£ 0> O ON CM ON O ON < ON X UN o un O UN o u> O UN o • o O LU o fX a o UJ O aC rH > o o a. LU m on on on CM \J (M CM < X 2L < co n X r~i *-> o CO O _l LU o . > O tX HI X a o o ex O LU Ln s: O- s: LLI CX X CO < ON LU On CO ON O ON (<1 UN O ON in on CM <\J < < ON X ON 3 On O UN O ON O ON ON ON CM (M o a • UJ o a of LU a: -H u_ of X CO - rH X co < ON 3 On Or 0> O UN O ON O ON ON r\J - -H o I— CO < i a LU IU Q. CO o ■z o LU CO ^ '/) IX LU K iJJ s: o . H (M h- co < i x IU LU Q. CO o < •H o o J On Of IU ~> o o o o CM ON X X o _J o U> lO ON >- ON ON r-l ON ^ U> ON > U> ^O ON UN O 0* o u> ON O UN O U> ON vj- U> O UN ON |>- ON |*» ON UN CT> UN UN UN UN UN u o M-l CO 13 U O O -> I I PQ r4 bO •H IX (M "J c\l (M (M iM CM 68 in -0 h- 00 On •H i\l '0 4- in ^o r>. 00 o» iH '\J CO xj- in r- ao UN •H t\J m t LO m n in LP, in in m a m vO vO •0 •0 >o -0 ■u -0 r- h- h- r>. r-- h- h- f>- r^- a) PS •H •U c o O O O O a :> O O 0> 0» o> a> JN ON ON l^ ON ON ON ON J> LlN ON ON ■p cd C O ON on U> on o> 0> u> ON ON. ON ON 0^ ON ON ON 'JN ON •H u> cr> ON u> ON ON o> ON ON ON. ON (J^ ON 0> ON ON ON 4-1 rH O on on ON a> s - ON ON ON (^ 0> ON ON ON ON :TN ON ON o> o> u> 0> en ON u> o> ON ON ON ON i.lN ON 0> o> lt> ON on on ON ON 0> ON ON kJN ON ON 0> ON ON ON CO u> On On on on ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON OJ o> on on on ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 0^ ON ON ON ON 5-t u> un on on on ON ON ON ON ON o> ON ON ON ON ON ON O o O O O O a • • rH o O O ~3 -> O O r-l O ~5 O O O O O CD M O O • • O LU LU LU LU J5 LU UJ CD LU lD UJ CD LU IU 1— « —I LU cu ex o a 1— h- l~ 1- h- h- H 1— h- (- 1- -J 1— >. 2: 2: Zv 2: z z 2 2L ^ z z z 2 2: '•y t— 1 2 H :s :s ~-C 3 >-< 21 <— 1 x) rH rH •H • H rH rH •H r-1 rH ■H .-( O rH s (\J 'NJ ;\i r\l OJ OJ OJ 'NJ OJ 'NJ (NJ OJ Nl l\l f\l O Nj o> ON 0* u 0> OJ LU ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 4- ON rH LU a Q. Q cu Q- • > > IU P- >- h- 1— P— 'U LU Ul IU IU LU LU LU UJ UJ cc . »- X O IU 3 O 3 O O a Q a a a Q 3 < H 1 Q L^ 3 > O O -J I/) U, ' # 3 3 a CO r-« :JJ rH O O _i —I h- > > > >• > > > > > >- oi > PQ _l _J O 1— h- »- 1— H- 1- h- h- 1— h~ a. »— O O IJU 1— » l-H t—i ►H 1-^ r-H »— < H-< r— 1 1— 4 1— 1 cu u 3 • X > _l _J _J _l _J _l -J _l _J -J • _l 3: ON IE a> ON O O^ z ON < 0> < ON < ON < ON < ON < ON < ON < ON < o^ < ON 2: ON < ON bO O on a o> r-H on H-1 on Q> 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON 3 ON K- ON 3 ON •H _ 1 0^ -J j> 2: on X on 0> or ON O ON a» 1 " 3 ON or ON a ON ON a ON o< ON a> JN < ON O UN Pt4 ON O on on ON ~T O ON 0* O ON ON ON ON ON ON ON O ON O ON ON O on on o> rH On ON O ON ON O ON ON ON ON ON UN ON O ON O ON rH 0> <\J on rH on rH on r^ on h- on r» on h- cr> 1-- on ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON cr>cr>o^a>cr>o> o^ on ooo^ooooooooooaooo oo a> 3 d •H ■U C o o 0> o> a> o> o« 0> ON 0^ 0> ON u> On o« a» 0> ON •JN ON ON ON 0> on o» on ON ON ON JN ON ON o> on o^ o> 0> ON ON ON ON ON a> cr> a> JN ON ON ON O^ ON ON o* on cr> o> ON o> On ON ON ON o> a> o> (JN JN ON ON o> ON on cr> ON o> ON ON (JN o^ ON JN o> o> ON o^ ON ON ON ON ON ON o o o o o o o o o o o CO C o •H 4J rH O CO CD > O o o O o o o O • < • • < • • < • • < • • < • O Y- o o t- o o H- o l~ O 1— < LU < < • < IU O CO HH < i— i ijj i— < H- >-H CQ »— 4 1 o t- o or o t- o j— o l~ o K 1 O t- . < • LU • < • • < • • • < » • • < • LU •h s: rH Q_ rH s: .— 1 CO •H s: r-H LL. rH 5: rH c£ r-A 21 rH UJ a s: a -J o CC O ►H a Cl. i— LU K 3 >- 3 1- Q H- 00 ^ r- 3 CO r> 00 3 3 < a: O O -J O a: rH _J o l£ rH _J o a: •-H a. O Cf rH \ O Of ■ H LU LO LU LU LU LU r- UJ to UJ o o O o o o CO fi. CO • LU • LU • UJ • LU UJ IJJ o h- o r- CD >- O 1— 1— h- LU Z LU 2 LU 2 IU z. LU 2* a >— < Q ►- • a >— « D t— 1 s: ^-) o H O •H o f-< O rH rH o O^ LO On LO o^ UJ • 5: ct • CL Z 3 cD Q_ s: O r- CO LL rt 111 5E h- _J > or. > >— « > a >- UJ i — t 3 K- 3 h- O h- r- ! < CO _J -J O r-< r— 1 CC ON 3 ON r- ON < o> < a> l-l (J* C» ON LU ON 3 UN LO o^ 3 ON >—i o> 3 o> ►-< ON 3 o> < ON o ON 2 ON '3 u> oo 0^ C2> O^ JZ 0> a ON 2 ON OS ON O ON o O^ O u^ O o^ o o^ O ON O o> 0^ O 0^ O o> rH ON o m o^ o u- r H ON ON 0> ON O o x o o* o ON O u^ o u> o U' (~) o-« O o> ON LO ON f_j O v LO CJN on ON m ON ON ON LO LT (J^ ON <\J O'' ON O^ <\i o> o> O' \l (\J c\l r\l NJ < v l CvJ r\I '\j .AJ (M f\J (\l r\i cvl r\l I vj C J ( 1 1 «l J-4 O IW CO rJ o o cu !-l QJ T3 CO a; M-l CO ■U CO TJ CN QJ CX H CU a r-> H 1 1 pq u •H 70 . -< <\i i-o vj- in vO r» CO ON o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m o\ cr> ■H U> ON ,H UN on •H ON On < on On < cr> tr> O o> o> cr> ZZOUMJ^ •> < on o» '/) S CT> CT» On Q i U> U> lu ar on o» •> < o> cr» »— <7> < Q tO ON ON to Q ON a> v. UJ • ON on > o ^ o> o^ o ON on D i/) ON ON CQ LU ON ON rH S ON ON O < ON 0> On CO "3 On On ON !U ON ON ON ►— • ON ON ON < CC ON ON o> y~ o on ON ON ON I U ON ON ON ON ON — » t— (JN ON ON ON ON ^■^ *~i ON ON ON ON ON — » "Z. ON ON ON ON ON t-i !D ON ON (JN ON ON ►—I O ON ON ON ON ON •» O ON UN UN on ON .H O UN UN Qn ON • O ON ON ON UN n .-1 ON ON ON ON LU O ON ON ON ON >_• O On ON ON JN ao — i on r^. r*- on •» •H UN O O UN nJ" O On O O On t—i r*- on o o on •» r* a> ro ro on On ON <0 fO ON ►— 1 ON On :\| (\J ON •» ON ON | | ON 0 IXJ UJ ON ON ft* uc to UN O O un X IU UN O O UN o O CiT On O O ON o .-» O ON O O JN •» t/) On O O On >n o ijN in n on 1— 1 j on — < in on •■ H aC 0> O iO on o vt UJ ON fNj l\| ON ■ H o k o> r» *Q 0> 1— 1 'si ^ 0> CM — 1 On •k O 0_ ON O P- 'JN -ct- »-« on a o on o 1— » UJ X ON -4" S|" ON CM *■ I— o on r- f- on • H < rH ON ON 0> ON o 1—4 O CO ON .H >-H ON »w ,-i .H .H >-t >H .-1 .H .— 1 -H O H (M lO -t if\ O N CO ^ O H r\| ff| 4- .H -H .-H i-l -H .-H .H .H rH .-I f\J CM CM CM CM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ^ a LU < a > -J o LU Ul >y> o Z> < h- X <— i t— < o h- •— I < h- Cj> s: 3 _J to D Q z _J □ cr IU o b-« < < at o ■S) -J IU > O co UJ < < H- IJJ h- — i LU a > > < a Q 'O a IU LU 'U r> > 3 to X 1— o tfl n J < »-- O LU < _i IU at _J Q > LU CO _i >— < < IU z UJ -o o 1-4 3 1—4 z 1- tJU O C5 LU >-^ z i/) V) o < Z » < o o X X JJ o U 1/) CJ < < z UN < 1— o LU < •» Ul • IU _J •- < _j • c/) _J Q. < r^ UJ < o i— ( CD »— t > 5: > z X < X •- t—t 1— i — i LO 2 o f- -o < LU LU U. < ~ :> < CO o a Q S -» . -t .-4 t— I >— I ^-1 ^< r— I f\ r0 xf in U r*- V ON o c © c o C o O o o o a o r- v o O «o at UJ f- LU X. ft* X • CO •P CO XI O •H 4J H ON ON ON ON ^NJ ON ON ON ON • O ON ON ON c^ 1^- CO ON ON ON ON J2 ON ON ON on bO ON ON UN ON ON •H ON ON ON r ]> ON J3 o o o o O M O o o o o O CO M O o o o o O O • • • • • aj o o o o O !-i >-l 0) XI QJ o o o -J. O J3 • t • • • X) •H ■H ~* ■ H r-1 Q) rH •H MH rt 4-1 ccj X) o o o CO CM o UJ o o CC a: o Q o o < QJ UJ a Q CO £X o o Q •— « >N H UJ S 5: —I »- o 3»: 2: -J XI z 3u > X »— < C t— t 3: > X 2; ctj o o >t ■ H O rH . ^ «\l H CM O UN ON a: o 1— o O UJ QJ >> H a j~ X ON X 0* < UN ►—I ON h- Q_ ON CO ON Q 0" H- ON «.-j O ON o 0> O ON O ON O o ON o 0> O o^ O ON O ON ON ON ON r~i ON O ON O ON ON ON ON o ON O ON j"in\Oi**-oocr>0'"-«c\i><)Nt m >o I s - oo ^ o h (\i m >j- u\ o r» co u* o rH .-» rH ■ -t rH ■H rH ■ H H -i <\l •* *• •» » •» 1— *- H- K- 1- H- H- ^w' O CD cD (D O CD O cfl X X X X X X X 4-1 ON La a* in CA ^H ON r~i ON rH UN O UN O ON 13 on • u> • CT> • ON • ON • ON • UN • UN O o> cr> u> CT> U> O ON u> 1 ON r\j ON IN ON rH ON ■ H 'JN •H un a> ON ON ON ON CT> 4-J On u> CJ> 0> ON ON u> ON 3 rH O CO r J> On u> ON ON ON ON ON 0> CT» On ON ON ON ON ON UN ON ON ON ON ON CT» o> O ON On ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON Q >■* a: a- cf a: at cC or Li O >4H 3 C5 O O O Q O O O O O O O O 3 O O • • • • • • CJ • • • • CJ • • J • • • UJ o UJ LU O LlJ O IU ;u O O LU O O IU O O LU O CO j: a: 3 of • a a- • CL uc <¥. (O cC 21 QC 2: O T3 U O O > LU > 1- >- X > ■Z. > 1— >- < >• O > O -J Ct -1 < _i LU _j IU _i CO ^1 2: _i a -J CD QJ _l 15 _J nC _J h- _) ^- J < _J 1 -J CO -J 1 rJ < o CO < LU O < O < < O 2- O -x O a O ~i >— < rH ac rH 1 — c • i LL* H- a- h- LU 1— 3 \— cC l- ►— 1 1- a. h- 1—1 H- a. ct) < CL < h- < CO < Z) < O < CO < < CO (U T. 2: 2" 21 CO 5: •5" 2- 2! rC O • r£ a 1— n O O d a O a cu rH H- 2: I- t— * i~ UJ h- < h- ZL h- Z i~ z h- z 3 h- CO 3 < CO 3 :s CO 3 •u Z) 1— i • Z) 1 — * 3 •— ) • 3 r— 1 •H < < 3 < 3 < 3 < CO /> O 3 O CO O O O 0£ —1 _ 1 O cC _l QC —1 O QC rH cC a? rH >v O CL rH ac O CC r- 1 "X O oe rH CU LU CC LU LU c£ LU LU QC IU \- LU IO LU h- UJ l/> UJ H3 O CJ O CJ O CD a O CD ac CD CD QC Z UJ • h- LU • 1- IU • h- UJ • LU UJ aj • LU IU uu CN *j: h CD H- J) — 1 Z LU 1—1 -z. LU ■z LU Z LU 2. IU 2: to •— • 5! »— « O 2: »—i a 2: y-\ O t-i 21 r— 1 a 1— 1 2! r- 1 ^ _l r-1 l£ rH O rV .-» CC T~k O LU rH O cy) rH LU rH O CO i-H H -J (\J 'JU cm O IU NJ UJ (NJ O 2 OJ -i a. rj 7T. (NJ M Q_ (\l T3 O o> in X ON in X ON in X ON (NJ <. ON (M Z) ON (NJ < ON (NJ 3 ON ^ LU 1- J— • H > f- > 21 CJ cc • a. V- CO 51 O 3 a_ 2: CO < O O rH CD H- CD 53 05 UJ O < CD ST '_D (3 (D ID 'D QJ CL H SI > _i > or > r-H > CL > ►— « > CL > 1 h- LU 1- 3 1— Z) h" Q 1- CO H- a h- CO H- • CN PQ t-4 K *—t LQ t— 1 00 •— 1 t— t HH »— 1 hH _J _J J _J Q —J O — 1 a -J O _l JN h- (J> <£ On < UN 3 UN »— 1 un 3 UJ. ^ r> ON UJ UN Z) ON HH UN Z> ON r— 1 UN 3 UN r-4 UN 3 UN r- 4 U^ 3 U^ r4 00 •H 3: u^ UN cO UN ot ON 3 UN Of UN 3 UN J UN ^ ON O 'JN ^ ON 3 u^ o> cr O u> O u> O j^ UN O u^ ON UN UN O UN O UN O u> O JN O U 1 O u v a» UN •H on O en C\J a^ UN i f l ON ON r-^ UN UN ON ON O UN rH UN O 'JN ON UN O cr fn un an O un O un o> UN O u> UN O UN UN m UN O UN O ON O U^ m ON O ON on en m on o> un in 0> ON UN m UN ON ON rsJ UN ON UN 'NJ UN O UN (NJ ON ON UN (M ON ON JN C\J C\J (\l eg i\j (NJ '\j cnj i\i (\J t\l f\j (M r\l 'VI (\l ^J (NJ (\J (M \l (NJ (NJ (NJ (NJ (NJ (NJ (NJ (NJ C\J CNJ 72 APPENDIX C On-Station Dates, Times, and Locations for GATE A/B-, B-, and C-Scale Ships The dates and times the individual GATE ships were on their respective stations are given in tables CI, C2 , and C3. These data were derived from the standard WMO marine weather logs for Phases I, II, and III. The averages and standard deviations of the ship positions were also calculated for the same dates and times, and the results are shown in tables C4 , C5 , and C6. The ship positions were reported in the WMO marine observations to the nearest 0.1°. The averages and standard deviations in these tables are given to the nearest 0.01°. A few of the ships were forced to leave station for medical evacuation of personnel, and to assist in planting drifting marker buoys. The dates on which these ships were on station, as well as latitude and longitude, are indicated by two entries, (A) and (B) . Comparison of the average positions in these tables with those given in some of the GATE Report series, e.g., Nos. 14 and 16, shows slight differences in some cases. Some of the ships moved around their stations more than others, or adjusted their positions. As a result, a few of the standard deviations exceed 0.3°. Where more precise positions are needed, it may be desirable to use the positions reported in the archived WMO data. Table CI. — On-station dates and times for Phase I 73 Ship Beginning Ending Julian day Date (1974) Time (GMT) Julian day Date (1974) Time (GMT) A/B-i scale ships Acad. Korolov 179 June 28 0000 19 7 July 16 2300 Poryv 179 June 28 0000 19 7 July 16 2300 E. Krenkel 179 June 28 0500 196 July 15 1700 Prof. Zubov 179 June 28 0000 197 July 16 2300 Musson 180 June 29 1100 197 July 16 0000 Okean 179 June 28 0000 197 July 16 2300 Priboy 179 June 28 0000 197 July 16 2300 B-sc< ale ships Oceanographer 179 June 28 0000 197 July 16 2300 Vanguard 180 June 29 1100 19 7 July 16 1900 Prof. Vize 179 June 28 0000 19 7 July 16 2300 Quadra 179 June 28 0000 19 7 July 16 2300 Meteor 178 June 27 2100 197 July 16 2300 Researcher 179 June 28 0000 19 7 July 16 2300 Dallas 179 June 28 0000 197 July 16 2300 Gilliss 179 June 28 0000 19 7 July 16 2300 74 Table C2 . — On-station dates and times for Phase II Ship Beginning Ending Julian day Date (1974) Time (GMT) Julian day Date (1974) Time (GMT) A/B-scale ships Acad. Korolov 209 July 28 0000 227 Aug. 15 1900 Poryv (A) 209 July 28 1100 217 Aug. 5 2100 " (B) 219 Aug. 7 2200 227 Aug. 15 2300 E. Krenkel 211 July 30 0500 227 Aug. 15 2300 Prof. Zubov 209 July 28 0700 227 Aug. 15 0700 Muss on 210 July 29 0900 227 Aug. 15 0000 Okean 209 July 28 0000 227 Aug. 15 1400 Priboy 209 July 28 0000 227 Aug. 15 1800 B-scale sh ips Oceanographer (A) 209 July 28 0000 211 July 30 1800 (B) 215 Aug. 3 0100 228 Aug. 16 0000 Prof. Vize 213 Aug. 1 0800 227 Aug. 15 2300 Vanguard 210 July 29 1200 227 Aug. 15 1900 Quadra 209 July 28 0600 227 Aug. 15 2 300 Meteor 209 July 28 0000 228 Aug. 16 0500 Researcher (A) 209 July 28 0000 219 Aug. 7 1700 (B) 222 Aug. 10 1100 228 Aug. 16 0000 Dallas 209 July 28 0000 227 Aug. 15 1900 Gilliss 218 Aug. 6 2100 229 Aug. 17 2300 Table C3. — On-station dates and times for Phase III 75 Ship Beginning Julian Date Time day (1974) (GMT) A/B-scal e ships 242 Aug. 30 2000 242 Aug. 30 0000 260 Sept. 17 2000 242 Aug. 30 0000 245 Sept. 2 1000 242 Aug. 30 0000 242 Aug. 30 2100 242 Aug. 30 0000 243 Aug. 31 0900 B-scale ships 243 Aug. 31 0200 242 Aug. 30 2100 259 Sept. 16 1000 242 Aug. 30 0000 251 Sept. 8 0000 242 Aug. 30 0000 242 Aug. 30 0000 242 Aug. 30 0000 242 Aug. 30 0300 242 Aug. 30 0000 C-scale ships 243 Aug. 31 0000 242 Aug. 30 0200 243 Aug. 31 1200 242 Aug. 30 0000 260 Sept. 17 1200 Ending Julian Date Time day (1974) (GMT) Acad. Korolov Poryv (A) " (B) E. Krenkel (A) (B) Prof. Zubov Mus s on Okean Priboy Meteor Prof. Vize (A) (B) Vanguard (A) (B) Quadra Oceanographer Researcher Bidassoa Gilliss Planet Dallas Fay Hecla (A) " (B) 261 Sept. 18 2300 260 Sept. 17 0900 261 Sept. 18 2300 243 Aug. 31 1700 261 Sept. 18 2300 261 Sept. 18 1900 261 Sept. 18 2000 262 Sept. 19 1700 261 Sept. 18 0400 261 Sept. 18 0100 258 Sept. 15 2200 261 Sept. 18 700 249 Sept. 6 1800 261 Sept. 18 2300 262 Sept. 19 1900 262 Sept . 19 1100 261 Sept. 18 2300 262 Sept. 19 2300 262 Sept. 19 1700 262 Sept . 19 2000 261 Sept. 18 2300 262 Sept . 19 2300 259 Sept. 16 1200 262 Sept. 19 1000 76 Table C4. — The average and standard deviation of the latitude and longitude positions held by the GATE ships during Phase I Ship Position Average Standard dev. Sample Lat. N. Long. W. Lat. N. Long. W. size (deg) (deg) (deg) (deg) A/B- -scale ships Acad. Korolov 8 11.99 23.42 0.03 0.04 456 Poryv 9 10.43 19.97 0.07 0.05 456 E. Krenkel 10 6.46 19.93 0.12 0.17 422 Prof. Zubov 11 5.00 22.94 0.00 0.46 456 Muss on 11C 4.97 22.66 0.10 0.18 399 Okean 12 6.43 26.90 0.04 0.06 456 Priboy 13 10.32 26.94 0.04 0.05 454 B-scale ships Oceanographer 1 8.50 23.49 0.02 0.04 456 Vanguard 1A 8.49 23.50 0.07 0.12 418 Prof. Vize 2 10.10 23.50 0.01 0.01 456 Quadra 3A 9.26 22.11 0.05 0.04 456 Meteor 4 7.80 22.12 0.02 0.04 459 Researcher 5 7.10 23.50 0.00 0.18 456 Dallas 6 7.73 24.80 0.04 0.00 454 Gilliss 7 9.27 24.78 0.04 0.07 456 77 Table C5. — The average and standard deviation of the latitude and longitude positions held by the GATE ships during Phase II „ . . . Average Standard dev. Sample shl P Position ■=—- — •*: -7 7— — 77 = 77 Lat. N. Long. W. Lat. N. Long. W. size (deg) (deg) (deg) (deg) A/B-scale ships Acad. Korolov 8 11.84 23.50 0.08 Poryv (A) 9 10.46 20.03 0.06 " (B) 9 10.45 20.02 0.05 E. Krenkel 10 6.36 19.86 0.06 Prof. Zubov 11 5.05 23.40 0.07 Musson 11C 4.93 23.32 0.42 Okean 12 6.40 26.72 0.02 Priboy 13 10.48 27.02 0.06 B-scale ships Oceanograph er (A) 1 8.50 23.50 0.00 11 (B) 1 8.50 23.48 0.07 Prof. Vize 1A 8.49 23.50 0.05 Vanguard 2 9.98 23.50 0.09 Quadra 3A 9.26 22.11 0.05 Meteor 4 7.80 22.20 0.01 Researcher (A) 5 7.10 23.50 0.01 11 (B) 5 7.10 23.50 0.00 Dallas 6 7.78 24.79 0.05 Gilliss 7 9.30 24.80 0.00 0.04 452 0.06 204 0.05 194 0.08 403 0.01 434 0.12 208 0.05 447 0.06 451 0.01 68 0.16 313 0.11 352 0.06 416 0.04 451 0.02 463 0.01 259 0.01 135 0.04 452 0.00 267 78 Table C6. — The average and standard deviation of the latitude and longitude positions held by the GATE ships during Phase III Ship Position Ave' rage Standarc . dev. Sample Lat. N. (deg) Long. W. (deg) Lat. N. (deg) Long. W. (deg) size A/B- -scale ships Acad. Koro] ov 8 11.98 23.44 0.08 0.11 460 Poryv (A) 9 10.49 19.92 0.05 0.06 443 " (B) 9 10.50 19.94 0.02 0.05 28 E. Krenkel (A) 10 6.37 19.80 0.14 0.08 43 n (B) 10 6.38 19.77 0.14 0.06 398 Prof. Zubov 11 4.89 23.40 0.13 0.02 477 Muss on 11C 4.79 23.41 0.12 0.08 153 Okean 12 6.43 26.88 0.05 0.06 471 Priboy 13 10.50 27.00 0.01 0.01 428 B-scale ships Meteor 1 8.48 23.45 0.24 0.08 414 Prof. Vize (A) 1A 8.43 23.46 0.07 0.09 387 ii (B) 1A 8.49 23.42 0.16 0.12 47 Vanguard (A) 2 10.07 23.38 0.23 0.29 186 (B) 2 10.01 23.47 0.07 0.10 263 Quadra 3C 8.98 22.54 0.06 0.08 481 Oceanograph er 4 7.76 22.20 0.05 0.02 493 Researcher 5 7.10 23.50 0.02 0.01 481 Bidassoa 6 7.70 24.70 0.03 0.05 500 Gilliss 7 9.25 C-S( 24.80 ;ale ships 0.05 0.02 493 Planet 27 9.14 22.98 0.40 0.04 477 Dallas 28 8.52 22.53 0.04 0.04 478 Fay Not available Hecla (A) 29 8.80 23.10 0.01 0.03 422 " (B) 29 8.77 23.03 0.06 0.11 48 (Continued from inside front cover) EDS 16 NGSDC 1 - Data Description and Quality Assessment of Ionospheric Electron Density Profiles for ARPA Modeling Project. Raymond 0. Conkright, March, 1977. (PB269620) EDS 17 GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center: Analysis of Ship Surface Meteorological Data Obtained During GATE Intercomparison Periods. Fredric A. Godshall, Ward R. Seguin, and Paul Sabol, October 1976. (PB263000) EDS 18 GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center: Shipboard Precipitation Data. Ward R. Seguin and Paul Sabol, November 1976. (PB263820) EDS 19 Separation of Mixed Data Sets into Homogenous Sets. Harold Crutcher and Raymond L. Joiner, January 1977. (PB26A813) EDS 20 GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center — Analysis of Rawinsonde Intercomparison Data. Robert Reeves, Scott Williams, Eugene Rasmusson, Donald Acheson, Thomas Carpenter, and James Rasmussen, November 1976. (PB264815) EDS 21 GATE Convection Subprogram Data Center: Comparison of Ship-Surface, Rawinsonde and Tethered Sonde Wind Measurements. Chester F. Ropelewski and Robert W. Reeves, April 1977. (PB268848) EDS 22 U.S. National Processing Center for GATE: B-Scale Surface Meteorological and Radiation System, Including Instrumentation, Processing, and Archived Data. Ward R. Seguin, Paul Sabol, Raymond Crayton, Richard S. Cram, Kenneth L. Ecatemacht, and Monte Poindexter, April 1977. (PB 268816) EDS 23 U.S. National Processing Center for GATE: B-Scale Ship Precipitation Data. Ward R. Seguin and Raymond B. Crayton, April 1977. (PB270222) EDS 24 A Note on a Gamma Distribution Computer Program and Computer Produced Graphs. Harold L. Crutcher, Grady F. McKay, and Danny C. Fulbright, May 1977. (PB269697) PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ADDDD?aD17333 NOAA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS NO A A, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was established as part of the Depart- ment of Commerce on October 3, 1970. The mission responsibilities of NOAA are to monitor and predict the state of the solid Earth, the oceans and their living resources, the atmosphere, and the space environment of the Earth, and to assess the socioeconomic impact of natural and technological changes in the environment. The six Major Line Components of NOAA regularly produce various types of scientific and technical information in the following kinds of publications. PROFESSIONAL PAPERS — Important definitive research results, major techniques, and special in- vestigations. TECHNICAL REPORTS— Journal quality with ex- tensive details, mathematical developments, or data listings. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS — Reports of preliminary, partial, or negative research or tech- nology results, interim instructions, and the like. CONTRACT AND GRANT REPORTS— Reports prepared by contractors or grantees under NOAA sponsorship. TECHNICAL SERVICE PUBLICATIONS— These are publications containing data, observations, in- structions, etc. A partial listing: data serials; pre- diction and outlook periodicals; technical manuals, training papers, planning reports, and information serials; and miscellaneous technical publications. ATLAS — Analysed data generally presented in the form of maps showing distribution of rainfall, chem- ical and physical conditions of oceans and atmos- phere, distribution of fishes and marine mammals, ionospheric conditions, etc. r/ H£NT Of Information on availability of NOAA publications can be obtained from: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE INFORMATION CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE N0AA--S/T 78-77