4.6 Article

Intercomparison of Humidity and Temperature Sensors: GTS1, Vaisala RS80, and CFH

Journal

ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 139-146

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s00376-010-9170-8

Keywords

GTS1 radiosonde; humidity; dry bias

Funding

  1. CAS [KZCX22-YW-207]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB428602]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40830102, 40775030]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

GTS1 digital radiosonde, developed by the Shanghai Changwang Meteorological Science and Technology Company in 1998, is now widely used in operational radiosonde stations in China.. A preliminary comparison of simultaneous humidity measurements by the GTS1 radiosonde, the Vaisala RS80 radiosonde, and the Cryogenic Frostpoint Hygrometer (CFH), launched at Kunming in August 2009, reveals a large dry bias produced by the ursi humidity sensor. The average relative dry bias is in the order of 10% below 500 hPa, increasing rapidly to 30% above 500 hPa, and up to 55% at 310 hPa. A much larger dry bias is observed in the daytime, and this daytime effect increases with altitude. The GTS1 radiosonde fails to respond to humidity changes in the upper troposphere, and sometimes even in the middle troposphere. The failure of GTS1 in the middle and upper troposphere will result in significant artificial humidity shifts in radiosonde climate records at stations in China where a. transition from mechanical to digital radiosondes has occurred. A comparison of simultaneous temperature observations by the GTS1 radiosonde and the Vaisala RS80 radiosonde suggests that these two radiosondes provide highly reproducible temperature measurements in the troposphere, but produce opposite biases for daytime and nighttime measurements in the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, the GTS1. shows a warm bias (<0.5 K) in the daytime and a relatively large cool bias (-0.2 K to -1.6 K) at nighttime.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available