Laserfiche WebLink
<br />20 <br /> <br />In an effort to assess the data quality and to aid in quantitative <br /> <br />interpretation of the information collected by these two instruments, <br /> <br />statistical comparisons of the liquid water contents measured by the FSSP <br /> <br />and JW were compiled for each flight. The comparisons are for one-second <br /> <br />samples. The results of these comparisons for the two flights discussed <br /> <br />in this report are displayed in Figures 2 and 3. In general, the correlation <br /> <br />between the FSSP and JW liquid water content values for each flight increased as <br /> <br />the mean liquid water contents observed that flight increased. This trend <br /> <br />is evident by comparing Figures 2 and 3. On 8 February 1983 (Figure 2), <br />3 <br />the majority of the points are concentrated below 0.05 g/m. A correlation <br /> <br />coefficient of only 0.470 was calculated for this case. On 27 February <br />3 <br />1983 (Figure 3), where a majority of the points exceeded 0.05 glm , the <br /> <br />correlation became much stronger (0.828). The other three flights supported <br /> <br />this trend. <br /> <br />Linear regression analysis of flights where a significant amount of <br /> <br />non-zero liquid water content data points were available indicated that <br /> <br />FSSP liquid water contents were 2 to 2.5 times greater than simultaneous <br /> <br />measurements by the JW. For two cases presented in this report, the slopes <br /> <br />of the regression line were 0.359 (8 Feb) and 0.5429 (27 Feb). <br /> <br />The 27 February 1983 regression analysis probably represents the <br /> <br />relationship between the two instruments better than the others because <br /> <br />of the large number of non-zero points scattered over a wide range <br /> <br />of liquid water content values. However, significant errors may have been <br /> <br />introduced in the total liquid water content measured by the FSSP on <br /> <br />this day during periods when significant numbers of droplets greater <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />than 32 microns in size were present. This occurred during a few cumulus <br /> <br />penetrations (see FSSP spectra, Figure 42). In this case, the actual <br /> <br />~ <br />