Laserfiche WebLink
<br />33 <br /> <br />Recording gauges at Redc1iff and Camp Hale were not sensitive enough <br /> <br />to measure the light precipitation that was observed to fall. Although <br /> <br />no direct verification is possible, observations and measurements agree <br /> <br />well with the light and varying precipitation rates computed from equa- <br /> <br />tion (5). <br /> <br />4.3 Error Analysis for the Water Budget <br /> <br />By varying temperature and relative humidity in mixing ratio com- <br /> <br />putations, but keeping trajectory and wind analyses the same, a simple <br /> <br />estimate of the effects of possible radiosonde measurement errors can <br /> <br />be made. Differences of combinations ~T = 10C, ~T - 50C, ~RH - 5% and <br /> <br />~RH - 10% are used for determining the magnitude such errors would make <br /> <br />in water budget computations. To see the effect of such errors at single <br /> <br />stations Camp Hale data is varied in combinations (~T, ~RH) of (00, 10%), <br /> <br />;; <br /> <br />(10, 0%) and (50, 0%) and new values of C - E for 1500 are obtained for <br /> <br />the MIN~C}~ and CHA~FPY intervals. Changes of (10, 0%) and (00, 10%) <br /> <br />are also applied to all three stations to observe the effects of possible <br /> <br />errors that are common to all three stations. Table II shows the resu1t- <br /> <br />ing condensation differences. <br /> <br />TABLE II <br /> <br />Induced Errors in Water Budget Computations <br />1500 M.S.T. 15 January, 1970 <br /> <br />10-6 gm/hr, ~C = C modified - C unmodified <br /> <br /> Error (~C) <br />Station T (OC) RH(%) MIN-CHA CHA-FPY <br />CHA 0 5 -.0.01 +0.02 <br />CHA 0 10 -.0.08 +0.10 <br />CHA 1 0 -.0.04 +0.06 <br />CHA 5 0 --0.48 +0.44 <br />All 1 0 -.0.05 -0.03 <br />All 0 10 +0.09 -0.00 <br /> <br />MIN-FPY <br /> <br />. -0.04 <br />-0.04 <br />