COOPERATIVE ATMOSPHERIC SURFACE EXCHANGE STUDY 1999
OPERATIONS PLAN
1 – 31 OCTOBER 1999
15 SEPTEMBER 1999
PREFACE
The Cooperative Atmospheric-Surface Exchange Study October 1999 (CASES-99)
field observational program represents the second study to investigate linkages
between the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. This study is designed to study
events in the nighttime boundary layer, and to investigate the physical processes
associated with the evening and morning transition regimes. The overall effort
encompasses observation, data analyses and numerical modeling to achieve an
understanding of episodic events that populate the nighttime stable boundary layer.
The Operations Plan provides details of the operations, including plans for 8 to 10
intensive observing periods. The operations center and the experimental design of the
main field site are described. The surface instrumentation, radiosonde launches and
remote sensing strategies are also discussed together with a detailed plan of aircraft
missions to achieve the scientific goals. The data management plan and safety issues
complete this document. A list of acronyms, which are used throughout the operations
plan, follows.
CASES-99 List of Acronyms
ABLE Argonne Boundary Layer Experiment
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
APO Argonne Project Office
ARM-CART Atmospheric Radiation Measurement-Clouds and Radiation Testbed
ATD Atmospheric Technology Division (of NCAR)
CASES Cooperative Atmosphere-Surface Exchange Study
CoRA Colorado Research Associates
CSU Colorado State University
ETL Environmental Technology Laboratory (of NOAA)
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FM-CW Frequency Modulation-Continuous Wave
GLASS GPS/Loran Atmospheric Sounding System
HRDL High-Resolution Doppler Lidar
IOP Intensive Observation Period
ISS
Integrated Sounding System
ISFF
Integrated Surface Flux Facility
JOSS Joint Office for Science Support (of UCAR)
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LLJ Low Level Jet
MAPR Multiple-Antenna Profiling Radar
NBL Nighttime Boundary Layer
NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research
NEXRAD Next Generation Radar
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NSF National Science Foundation
NWS National Weather Service (of NOAA)
PBL Planetary Boundary Layer
RADAR Radio Detection and Ranging
RASS Radio Acoustic Sounding System
SMPS Scientific Mission Planning Scientist
SODAR Sound Detection and Ranging
TEP Turbulent Eddy Profiler
UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ..............................................................…………………………………………i
CASES-99 list of acronyms……………………………………………………………..ii
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………..iii
Section 1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5.1
1.5.2
INTRODUCTION
Scope and objective of CASES .………………………………………………..
Primary objective of CASES-99 .………………………………………………
Primary science goals……………………………………………………….…..
The Gulley Substudy…………………………………………………………….
Location and duration of the field observations…………………………………..
Experiments conducted by Principal Investigators………………………………
Overviews of the IOPs designed to meet the primary objectives…………………
Clear sky light wind conditions…………………………………………………..
Elevated shear layers………………………………………………………………
Section 2
CASES-99 DAILY OPERATIONS
2.1 Operations Centers………………………………………………………………..
2.1.1 CASES-99 operations center………………………………………………………
2.1.2 Airport operations centers………………………………………………………….
2.1.2.1 Woming King Air……………………………………………………………………
2.1.2.2 NOAA Long EZ…………………………………………………………………..
2.1.2.3 NOAA Twin Otter…………………………………………………………………
2.1.3 On-site trailer facility……………………………………………………………….
2.2 Operations center coordinators and responsibilities………………………………….
2.2.1 Operations Director…………………………………………………………………..
2.2.2 Scientific Mission Planning Scientist…………………………………………………
2.2.3 Aircraft Coordinator……………………………………………………………………
2.2.4 Remote Sensing Coordinator (MAY BE DROPPED)……………………………….
2.2.5 Status, Surface and Sounding Coordinator……………………………………………
2.2.6 Data Management Coordinator………………………………………………………….
2.2.7 Weather Forecaster………………………………………………………………………
2.3 Daily operations……………………………………………………………………………
2.3.1 Operations center………………………………………………………………………..
2.3.2 Daily operations:Activities and time table………………………………………………..
2.3.3 Intensive Observing Period………………………………………………………………...
2.3.4 Non-IOP daily schedule of operations………………………………………………………
2.4 Operational modeling efforts………………………………………………………………….
2.5 Weather information and weather forecasts…………………………………………………..
2.5.1 Climatology on the Walnut Valley……………………………………………………………
2.5.2 Weather information………………………………………………………………………….
2.5.3 Weather forecasts…………………………………………………………………………..
SECTION 3
3.1
INSTRUMENTATION
Network design and surface observation……………………………………………………..
SECTION 4
REMOTE SENSING, KITE AND RADIOSONDE FACILITIES
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7.1
4.7.2
Outline………………………………………………………………………………………..
Basic characteristics of on-site facilities…………………………………………………….
Profilers……………………………………………………………………………………
Radar………………………………………………………………………………………
Lidars……………………………………………………………………………………….
Sodar………………………………………………………………………………………
Kite…………………………………………………………………………………………
Radisondes………………………………………………………………………………….
Argonne Boundary Layer Experiment (ABLE) site…………………………………………
NOAA wind profiler sites……………………………………………………………………
ARM-CART 915 MHz profilers……………………………………………………………
NOAA WSR-88D radar……………………………………………………………………
Radiosondes off-site………………………………………………………………………
NOAA/NWS radiosonde sites…………………………………………………………….
ARM-CART sondes………………………………………………………………………
SECTION 5
AIRCRAFT AND OPERATIONS
5.1 Aircraft platforms and instrumentation…………………………………………………..
5.1.1 Wyoming King Air………………………………………………………………………
5.1.1.1 Operational characteristics……………………………………………………………….
5.1.1.2 Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………………..
5.1.1.3 Fkight restrictions………………………………………………………………………..
5.1.2 NOAA Twin Otter………………………………………………………………………..
5.1.2.1 Operational characteristics……………………………………………………………….
5.1.1.2 Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………….
5.1.1.3 Flight restrictions………………………………………………………………………..
5.1.2 NOAA Twin Otter……………………………………………………………………….
5.1.2.1 Operational characteristics………………………………………………………………
5.1.2.3 Flight restrictions…………………………………………………………………………
5.1.3 Long-EZ…………………………………………………………………………………..
5.1.3.1 Operational characteristics ………………………………………………………………
5.1.3.2 Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………….
5.1.3.3 Flight restrictions………………………………………………………………………..
5.2 Aircraft bases……………………………………………………………………………..
5.2.1 Colonel Jabara (KAAO) Wicita………………………………………………………….
5.2.2 El Dorado…………………………………………………………………………………
5.3 General information……………………………………………………………………….
5.3.1 IOP Flight notification……………………………………………………………………..
5.3.2 In-flight communications…………………………………………………………………
5.3.3 Flight safety issues………………………………………………………………………..
5.3.3.1 Aircraft coordination……………………………………………………………………..
5.3.3.2 Tower fly-bys/data validation…………………………………………………………….
5.3.3.3 Eye safety/lasers……………………………………………………………………………
5.3.3.4 Kite status……………………………………………………………………………….
5.3.3.5 Crew rest and pilot fatigue……………………………………………………………….
5.4 Flight cross sections………………………………………………………………………
5.4.1 Nominal flight plan……………………………………………………………………….
5.4.4.1 Vertical profiling…………………………………………………………………………..
5.4.1.2 Constant altitude surveys………………………………………………………………….
5.4.1.3 Vertically-stacked segments………………………………………………………………..
5.4.1.4 Horizontally-spaced segments………………………………………………………………
5.4.1.5 Tower and kite fly-bys……………………………………………………………………..
SECTION 6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.4.1
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5
6.5
6.5.1
6.6.2
Data management……………………………………………………………………………..
Data protocol…………………………………………………………………………………..
Data management reponsibilities…………………………………………………………….
CASES-99 data management strategy………………………………………………………..
Investigator requirements……………………………………………………………………..
Data format convention…………………………………………………………………………
CASES-99 dataset documentation…………………………………………………………….
Field catalog………………………………………………………………………………….
Supplemental data collection…………………………………………………………………
Data processing after the field season………………………………………………………..
Data access after the field season…………………………………………………………….
Data archival and long-term access………………………………………………………….
SECTION 7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
DATA MANAGEMENT AND FIELD CATALOG
PROJECT SAFETY
Site safety……………………………………………………………………………………
Argonne National Laboratory APO and ABLE sites………………………………………..
Emergency contact information……………………………………………………………….
Locations…………………………………………………………………………………….
Los Alamos National Laboratory lidar safety………………………………………………
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope and objectives of CASES
The Cooperative-Surface Exchange Study (CASES) is an interdisciplanary effort to investigate linkages between the
atmosphere, hydrosphere and terrestrial biosphere. This Study encompasses observations, data analyses and
numerical modeling efforts that involve the collaborative efforts of both research scientists and students.
The site for the observational studies is the Walnut River Watershed, east of Wichita, Kansas. Within and close to
the Watershed long-term measurements are being accumulated by boundary layer profilers and surface facilities
operated by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne Boundary Layer Facility (ABLE). Soil moisture
and a temperature array are located in the Towanda subbasin, in the southern part of the Watershed.
The operation of this facility is by the Hydrologic Science Team of Oregon State University.
Although the CASES site may be considered as a stand-alone instrumented facility for atmospheric boundary layer
and hydrologic research, it is embedded within relatively dense observational networks that provide larger-scale
meteorological data to fulfill CASES research goals. The Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement (ARM)-Clouds and Radiation Testbed (CART) observational facilities are located in Kansas and
Oklahoma. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also provides a relatively dense
array of of 404 MHz profilers and radiosonde sites in the Great Plains, which surround the CASES site. This region
of the continental United States is now observed routinely in greater detail than any other region of comparable size
in the world. Further details are provided in section 5.4.4 and 4.7 and accompanying figures.
The first short-term observational study, CASES-97, took place from April 21 to June 17, 1997. Its goals were to
study the role of surface processes in the diurnal variation of the boundary layer, to test WSR-88D precipitation
algorithms and to define relevant scaling for precipitation and soil properties.
The second episodic field program, CASES-99, to take place during the month of October 1999, is designed to study
events in the nighttime boundary layer (NBL), and to investigate the physical processes associated with the evening
and morning boundary layer transition regimes. The specific scientific goals of CASES-99 are listed in the
following section. The long-term goal of this program is to gain sufficient knowledge to be able to develop
parameterizations of subgrid-scale turbulent mixing processes that characterize the NBL.
CASES-99 has reached the point of implementation by the generous support of finances, facilities and personnel
from many sources. These are: the U.S. Army Research Office, the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Energy and it’s National Laboratories, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Colorado Research Associates, the University of
Wyoming, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and it’s Research Laboratories, the Wichita Office
of the National Weather Service, the National Soil Tilth Laboratory and the Spanish Meteorological Institute.
University facilities, scientists and students participating in CASES-99 include: Colorado State University, the
University of Colorado, Iowa State University, the University of Iowa, the University of Massachusetts,
Oregon State University, the Wageningen Agricultural University, the Netherlands, and the University of Barcelona.
Sources:
CASES 1995:Overview and Implementation of CASES:the Coooperative Atmosphere-Surface Exchange Study.
Available over the World Wide Web at http://www.joss.ucar.edu/cases.html., 47pp.
LeMone et al., 1999:Land-Atmosphere Interaction Research and Oppertunities in the Walnut River Watershed in
Southeast Kansas:CASES and ABLE. Bull. Amer. Mereorol. Soc., in press.
1.2 Primary Objective of CASES-99
CASES-99 will combine measurements and data analyses with state-of-the-art numerical modeling to investigate 4
areas of scientific interest. The choice of these scientific topics is motivated by both the need to delineate physical
processes that characterize the stable boundary layer, which are as yet not clearly understood (see Nappo and
Johansson, 1999: Bound-Layer Meteorol., 90, 345-374), and the specific scientific goals of the investigators who are
expected to participate in the observational, analysis and numerical modeling activities of CASES-99. The field
program will use the CASES instrumented site within the Walnut River Watershed (WRW, see Figure 1),
including the Department of Energy ARM-CART, the Argonne National Laboratory Atmospheric Boundary Layer
Experiment (ABLE), and the NOAA Wind Profiler Network in south central Kansas, together with enhanced
instrumentation, for one month of extensive measurements during October 1999. More information on the site can
be found at the CASES-99 website at http://www.co-ra.com/cases/CASES-99.html and from ABLE program
information located at http://www.atmos.anl.gov/ABLE.
Although the general study area is the same as that for CASES-97 as shown in Figure 1, our goals are considerably
different. The experimental site is a watershed, but is actually quite flat (relief is approximately 30 meters across 60
km), and is climatologically favored for clear sky and weakly stable to very stable conditions during autumn. Here,
`weakly stable' means that turbulence is continuous, Monin-Obukhov theory is valid and 0.25 Ri >1.0, whereas
`very stable' means that turbulence is intermittent, Monin-Obukhov theory is not valid and generally Ri >1.0 (Mahrt
1998).
1.2.1
Primary Science Goals
1) Provide a time history of internal gravity waves, KH shear instabilities, and turbulence events in the nighttime
stable boundary layer, and to evaluate the relative contributions to intermittent heat, moisture and momentum fluxes
that can be associated with these phenomena. Sources of turbulence bursts include, but are not restricted to, surface
and elevated shear layers and KH instability, internal gravity waves within the stable boundary layer, drainage
currents, and surface vortex shedding.
2) Measure heat and momentum fluxes and their divergences accompanying the events contributing to turbulence,
transports, and mixing throughout the nocturnal boundary layer, and especially within the surface layer (~ 10 to 20
m), to assess the departures from similarity theory under weakly stable and very stable conditions.
3) Define the relative importance of surface heterogeneity, particularly under very stable light wind conditions, on
the initiation of shallow drainage currents (O[10m]), and the horizontal and vertical transports that accompany such
boundary undulations.
4) Acquire data during the transition from a convective to a stable boundary layer regime and vice-versa to compare
with existing models of this transition, and to assess the role of this transition period in the initiation of inertial
oscillations and the enhancement of low-level jets ~ 100-300 m above the surface.
1.2.2 The Gulley Substudy
The motivation of the gulley substudy is to examine the nocturnal temperature distribution in a shallow gulley and
formation of cold air drainage in the gulley on clear nights with weak synoptic scale flow. The slope in the gulley is
rather weak but we anticipate intermittent drainage flow to occur when the large scale flow is less than a few meters
per second. The purpose this substudy is to determine the vertical structure of the drainage flow, its evolution in the
downslope direction and its horizontal structure within the shallow gulley. We will also examine interaction with the
overlying ambient flow (which could be drainage on a larger scale). On nights with moderate synoptic flow, is the
wind still modified in the gulley even though drainage does not develop? Does drainage flow sometimes occur as
occasional pulses, yielding to the synoptic flow for the rest of the time.
In addition to the instrumentation described in Figure 3 of the operations plan, smoke will be released on a number
of nights to visually examine the flow and dispersion in the gulley. After initial analysis of the data, we will
consider moving 2-D sonic anemometer #6 (Figure 3) to the head of the gulley. The OSU 2-D sonic anemometers
are mounted at 1 m on mini-towers, powered by batteries and must be downloaded once per weak. The horizontal
wind components are observed at one sample per second. The OSU thermistor network across the gulley will
measure 1min. averaged temperature and also operate on batteries.
The Iowa State (Hatfield) thermocouples will be positioned at 100 m intervals along the length of the gulley.
Thermocouples will be positioned across the gully at 10 m interval to measure the vertical variation along the side
slopes.. Measurements will be made at 10 second intervals with 5 minute averages output during the sunset to dawn
+ 1 hour period and 30 minute output the remainder of the day. The thermocouples will be naturally ventilated and
positioned at a height of 0.5 m above the surface. Flux measurements (Iowa State) will be made on two towers with
3-d sonics at 2 and 10 m. One will be positioned in the level range area and one within the gully. Data collection
would be at 10Hz only during IOP (Intense Observational Periods) and at half-hour values during the remainder of
the time. These sites will have net radiation (2 m) and soil heat flux (0.1 m) to capture the energy balance
components.
Banta's group plans to interrogate the gully with the high-resolution Doppler lidar (HRDL) by performing verticalslice scans close to the surface (perhaps covering from 0 to 100 m at a couple of km range, and scanning slowly to
get good [less than 10 m] vertical resolution). These will be repeated probably every 10-30 s to observe the
time evolution of flow/turbulence structures. They also plan some azimuth (nearly horizontal) scans to document
the horizontal variability of the flows. They also hope to scan across the flow along the axis of the gully..
1.3 Location and duration of the field observations
The CASES-99 field program is planned for the entire month of October 1999. This period was chosen for its
climatologically high frequency of clear, calm nights and therefore increased likelihood of stable boundary layer
development. A review of tower and sodar measurements from ABLE instrumentation within the CASES site for
October 1997 showed that approximately 40% of the nights had mostly clear skies and light (< 5 m/s) near-surface
winds. The remainder of the nights had partial or complete cloud cover, altering the radiative balance significantly,
and would be appropriate for study of the NBL and dispersion under cloudy conditions. On a few nights, windy
conditions are likely to prevent the formation of a stable boundary layer.
1.4 Experiments conducted by Principal Investigators
Name
Research Interest
Source
--------------- -----------------------------------------------------------Ray Arritt
Stable boundary layer modeling
NSF
Ben Balsley
Vertical structure and fluxes of the NBL
NSF, NASA
Bob Banta
The evolution of the NBL
NOAA, ARO
Bill Blumen
Gravity currents and dissipation in the NBL NSF, ARO
Dan Cooper
Small-scale turbulent structures in the NBL DOE, NASA
Rich Coulter
Detailed depiction of the NBL, climatology DOE
Joan Cuxart
LES modeling of the NBL
Spanish Met Inst
Henk deBruin
Monin-Obukhov similarity theory validity
Wageningen Agric. Univ.
Dave Fritts
Modeling gravity wave, K-H billow flux
ARO, NSF
Dennis Garvey
Mike Jensen
Jerry Klazura
Larry Mahrt
Torben Mikkelsen
Andreas Muschinski
Carmen Nappo
Steve Oncley
Antti Piironen
Greg Poulos
John Prueger
Russ Qualls
Jielun Sun
Marv Wesely
Structural analysis of NBL
ARO
Vertical structure and fluxes of the NBL
NSF, NASA
Instrument performance
DOE
Near-surf flux, sources of error in param
ARO, NSF
Small-scale NBL evolution
Risoe
Eval. of struct and contrib. to NBL fluxes NOAA
GW evolution in the NBL, pressure meas
DOE
Flux measurements in the NBL
NCAR
Lidar validation
Vaisala Oyj
Def. sources of NBL fluxes for param devel ARO, NSF
Moisture fluxes in the NBL
NSTL
Canopy fluxes in the NBL
NSF
Flux div., intera. meso-microscale eddies
ARO, NSF
NBL CO2 fluxes and behaviour
DOE
1.5 Overview of IOPs designed to meet the primary objectives
1.5.1 Clear sky, light wind conditions for the evening transition, inertial oscillations, intermittent heat and
momentum fluxes within the surface layer, drainage currents with associated turbulent bursts and wave generation
and the morning transition.
1.5.2 Elevated shear layers associated with the low-level jet (LLJ) to measure intermittent heat moisture and
momentum fluxes associated with shear flow instability and overturning Kelvin- Helmholtz billows.
2. CASES-99 Daily Operations
2.1 Operations Centers
2.1.1
CASES-99 Operations Center
The operations center will serve six main functions. These functions include 1) Operations coordination, 2)
Project Status, 3) Sounding and remote sensing coordination, 4) Aircraft coordination, 5) Project communications,
and 6) Data access/analysis. The CASES-99 Operations Center is located in two trailers, sharing space with the
Argonne Project Office. See Figure 1. The basic information follows.
ALL CASES PARTICIPANTS ARE REQUIRED TO:
1)Read the ABLE Safety Orientation Document and complete the ABLE Safety Orientation Sign-off sheet. Both
are located at the ABLE Web site - Safety Documentation.
2)Complete an ABLE Site Visit Request Form, located at the ABLE Web site - ABLE Site Visit Information.
3)Completion of this form is required to work in the trailers, and if you intend to hook up a computer. Those
CASES participants who plan to use any other ABLE sites, such as Beaumont or Smileyberg, also need to complete
a separate questionnaire for these sites. At the ABLE Web site, scroll down to ABLE IOP Questionnaire.
Address: Argonne Project Office, 13645 Southwest Haverhill Road, Augusta KS 67010.
(See the CASES-99 Web Site for information on how to send parcels, equipment, etc. to this location.)
Phones: (1) 316-xxx-xxxx
(2) 316-yyy-yyyy
The two CASES phone numbers will be assigned before October 1, 1999.
Six phones (three in each trailer) will be available to access either phone line. Local service is free, but your
personal phone card must be used for long distance calls.
Fax:316-775-1291
A Fax machine is available in the east trailer.
Copy machine: available in the east trailer.
Computer access: Ten internet connections are available on the south side of each trailer.
Meeting Room: located in the middle of the east trailer. A total of 35 chairs will be available to be placed in the
meeting room for daily briefing meetings. A computer projection system, overhead projector and screen are also
provided for these meetings.
Break Room: located in the west trailer. A coffee maker, water cooler, microwave and refrigerator are provided.
Three portable toilets are provided on the north side of the east trailer, between the trailer and the storm shelter.
A mobile storage facility will be situated at this site.
See shipping instructions on the CASES-99 web site.
Operations Coordination
The Operations Center staff is responsible for carrying out the mission(s) authorized by the PIs at the Daily
Planning Meeting. This includes start-up, termination and overall coordination between various facilities during an
IOP.
Project Status
The Operations Center staff is responsible for monitoring and making inquiries into the operational status
of all CASES-99 facilities. This function provides the project PIs with continuously updated information on the
operational readiness of various facilities as well as the current state of resource depletion. This information is
reported at the Daily Planning meeting each day and is also available via the Field Catalog.
Sounding and Remote Sensing Coordination
This function provides for the notification and updating of all rawinsonde sites regarding operations as
well as the monitoring of the collected data. In addition, this function provides for coordination between various
facilities regarding scan strategies and alteration of sampling for aircraft overflights.
Aircraft Coordination
This function provides for the notification of, and coordination with project aircraft before, during and after
operations. The Operations Center will act as a single point of contact between the project and those associated with
aircraft operations.
Project Communications
This function provides voice, data, and facsimile interactions with all participants and facilities during the
project. Any problems or emergencies that arise will be funneled through the Operations Center. It will act as an
Information Center for receiving, transmitting, and relaying information among PIs, support staff, pilots, and
sounding operators.
Phone, fax, copier, and internet access is available at the Operations Center as well as equipment for
meetings. A radio will be available for communications with aircraft, and cell phones will be available for surface
communication.
Data Access/Analysis
The Operations Center trailer along with the ABLE Project Office trailer will provide facilities for limited
data access and analysis. Desk space for 20 computers will be available. A Local-Area-Network is installed in the
Operations Center with limited internet access.
2.1.2 Airport Operations Centers
The airport operations centers will be sited at the airports where the aircraft in use for CASES-99 will be
based. For the Wyoming King Air and the Twin Otter (??), this will be at Jabara (Wichita). For the LONG-EZ,
this will be at El Dorado. Details of personnel, contact information, and lodging are included here for convenience.
More complete information on aircraft flight capabilities and restrictions, instrumentation, scheduling, and
anticipated flight tracks are available in Section 5.
2.1.2.1 Wyoming King Air
PI:
Pilot:
Base:
Dave Fritts
Mark Hoshor
Colonel Jabara (KAAO) Wichita
Communications:
ground:
cell phone: 307-760-1883
fax: TBD
122.9 KHz, 123.45 KHz, or alt.
same
ground-to-air:
air-to-air:
Motel/phone/fax:
StudioPLUS
9450 E. Corporate Hills Dr.
Wichita, KS 67207
phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
fax: (316) 652-8882
2.1.2.2 NOAA LONG-EZ
PI:
Pilot:
Base:
Rick Eckman (Rick - help below??)
Ed Dumas
El Dorado
Communications:
ground:
ground-to-air:
air-to-air:
Motel/phone/fax:
cell phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
fax: xxx-xxx-xxxx
122.9 KHz, 123.45 KHz, or alt.
same
??
2.1.2.3 NOAA Twin Otter
PI:
Bob McMillen
Pilot:
Jeff Hagan, Phil Hall
Base:
Communications:
ground:
ground-to-air:
air-to-air:
Motel/phone/fax:
Colonel Jabara (KAAO) Wichita
cell phone: 423-603-0300
fax: xxx-xxx-xxxx
122.9 KHz, 123.45 KHz, or alt.
same
??
2.1.3 On-Site Trailer Facility
The on-site trailer facility is a 48' semi-trailer provided by Steve Frasier (University of Massachusetts), but only
about 30' of usable space is available. It is located on the northwest corner of the inter-section of 120 street and Ellis
road (see Figure 4). Two portable toilets are located adjacent to the trailer.
The principal purpose of this space is to provide amenities for field participants. A water cooler, coffee maker,
refrigerator and microwave are provided for this purpose. There is AC power and overhead lighting. A heater will
be supplied if necessary.
.
2.2 Operations Center Coordinators and Responsibilities
Organizational responsibilities to ensure that the science goals will be met during the field phase will be shared by
on-site principal investigators, a staff member of JOSS-UCAR and a weather forecaster, if one is available to be onsite.
The following positions will be filled from the pool of principal investigators and by the JOSS representative.
2.2.1 Operations Director
The Operations Director will be a rotating position, with a new Director filling this position approximately every 10
days or for 3 IOPs. The overall responsibility of the Operations Director is to oversee all aspects of the field and
aircraft operations in support of the scientific goals of CASES-99. This is to be accomplished by close coordination
with the other coordinators, whose responsibilities are listed below. The Operatiions Director will have the final
responsibility, after consultation with the other coordinators and principal investigators, to initiate, alter and
terminate all operational activities associated with an IOP. Specific operations activities include:
1. Oversight of the operations facility at the APO to ensure that communications required to carry out a successful
field program are maintained, that data analyses are undertaken and that observational strategies are continually
evaluated.
2. Organize and conduct the afternoon briefing meetings, where the forecast and status reports of the aircraft and all
instrumentation are presented. Report on progress of the field observational program and the observational
strategies.
3. Lead the discussion on the designation of an IOP, and conduct the appointment of a Scientific Mission Planning
Scientist as the PI responsible to plan and coordinate the IOP.
2.2.2 Scientific Mission Planning Scientist
This position will be filled during the afternoon briefing meeting, when an IOP has been designated to commence in
approximately 24 hours. The Scientific Mission Planning Scientist (SMPS) should be a PI with a research
interest in the science goal(s) of the designated IOP. This individual will be responsible for the conduct of the field
operations during the IOP, and will work closely with the Operations Director and other coordinators to achieve the
mission goals. The SMPS may be the Operations Director or Aircraft Coordinator if appropriate.
Specific Responsibilities of the Scientific Mission Planning Scientist
1. The SMPS should meet with other coordinators and PIs following the daily briefing meeting to plan future
activities associated with the designated IOP.
2. The SMPS should organize an early morning meeting (by 0600-0900 local time) with other coordinators and
interested PIs to review the latest weather forecast, aircraft status and the status of instrumentation needed to carry
out the IOP. The decision to continue IOP planning should be made at this time. The SMPS may decide to cancel
the IOP if the weather forecast has changed to the extent that the scientific goals could not be met, or if crucial
instrumentation would not be available.
3. The SMPS takes the principal responsibility for a detailed report of the IOP following its completion: goals,
aircraft participating, description of significant events during the IOP and an assessment of its success.
2.2.3 Aircraft Coordinator
This position will rotate among PIs knowlegeable in aircraft operations. This individual is responsible for knowing
the operational readiness of the three aircraft. The lead times required by each aircraft facility should also be
known, and the Aircraft Coordinator will be the person primarily responsible for aircraft operations during CASES99. The Aircraft Coordinator is the only person in direct contact with aircraft during IOPs and should be aware of
the positions of all aircraft relative to each other and any other safety issues requiring ground to plane
communication. Aircraft operations and safety issues are to be provided by each facility.
Specific Responsibilites of the Aircraft Coordinator include:
1. Basic knowledge of flight plans for all missions.
2. Recommend airborne operating strategies given mission goals and
operational constraints.
3. Awareness of aircraft limitations, such as maintenance schedules,
range, altitude limits, crew limits, etc..
4. Provide written documentation via real time log of all aircraft
operations during the experiment, and provide this information
to the Data Management Coordinator for incorporation into the IOP report
and Field Catalog.
5. Maintain communication with all aircraft in the air at all times.
6. Update airborne mission scientists and pilots with weather conditions, movement of features (e.g.,
thunderstorms) and any other weather information that could affect the success of the mission.
7. Communicate with the FAA as is appropriate, and be aware of airspace limitations that might affect proposed
aircraft operations.
2.2.4 Remote Sensing Coordinator
It is not clear that this needs to be a separate position. Perhaps, the SMPS can handle this responsibility.
The principal responsibility is to work with those who are operating remote sensors (radars and lidars) to implement
scanning strategies to meet the goals of each IOP. The strategies will be implemented in at least two stages. Initial
scanning strategies will be set up, following the designation of an IOP at the afternoon briefing meeting. This will
be a collaborative effort among the scientists with specific scientific goals that involve remote sensors. As events
unfold during each IOP, and information is received about changing meteorological conditions, scanning strategies
may be revised in the field to meet new requirements for data collection.
2.2.5 Status, Surface and Sounding Coordinator
This position will be filled by JOSS staff member, Greg Stossmeister.
The Responsibilities include:
1. Keep track of the status of all instruments, except aircraft, on a daily basis and reporting this information in the
daily briefing meeting. Update this information before an IOP, and provide any changes in status to the Operations
Director and the SMPS.
2. Provide the progress on meeting each of the scientific objectives for consideration when an IOP is being
considered.
3. Maintain the balloon inventory at GLASS and ISS sites, and provide this information when an IOP is being
considered.
4. Notification of an IOP should be communicated to all radiosonde operators 24 hours in advance. A cancellation
of an IOP is also sent to the radiosonde operators when known.
2.2.6 Data Management Coordinator
This position will be filled by JOSS staff member, Greg Stossmeister.
The Responsibilities include:
1. Collect information on a day-to-day basis that will be included in the Field Catalogue. The Field Catalog will be
completed at the end of the field observational period.
2. Monitor data collection systems, to the extent possible, and determine if any irregularities exist. This information
needs to be brought to the attention of those responsible for correcting the problems.
3, Provide archived data, if requested.
4. Post experiment data management. See section 6.
2.2.7 Weather Forecaster
This position may not be filled.
The primary responsibility is to monitor daily weather and weather forecasts from all available sources, and provide
24 - 36 hour forecasts for an IOP. This information should be available during the daily briefing meeting, where it
will be considered. The primary responsibility also includes the preparation of up-dated weather forecasts during
the 12 hour period leading up to an IOP. This information will be supplied to the SMPS to use in pre-IOP planning.
See section 2.5.
2.3 Daily Operations
2.3.1 Operations Center
Daily briefing meetings will take place at the ABLE Project office site, 13645 SW Haverhill Road, Augusta KS.
This site is operated by the Argonne National Laboratory. Two trailers will be equipped for meetings, computer
hook ups, all CASES-99 communications and work space for on-site participants.
ABLE Project Scientist:Jerry Klazura
Phone:316-775-1290
Fax:316-775-1291
See section 2.1.1 for further information about the CASES-99 Operations Center at the ABLE Project Office (APO).
The main site, containing surface and remote sensing facilities, is discussed in section 3.2.
Airport Operation Centers are discussed in section 2.1.2.
2.3.2 Daily Operations:Activities and Time-Table
The timing of the daily activities is primarily determined by:
the earliest initiation of an IOP. This time would be approximately 1600 local time if the late afternoon-early
evening transition of the boundary layer is to be studied. The latest completion of an IOP would be approximately
0900-1000 local time if the morning transition is to be studied.
the need to provide 24 hour notice to launch radiosondes at the main site, and at the ISS and ABLE Beaumont
sites.
the need to provide notice to the aircraft facilities of a planned IOP, within the time period required by each
facility.
Time Line
0600 - 0900 local time (variable):Meeting at the APO, usually consisting of the SMPC, Aircraft Coordinator and
interested PIs. A forecaster may attend this meeting if one will be available during field operations. This early
morning meeting will only take place if an IOP was called at the daily briefing meeting at 1500 local time on the
previous day.
The purpose is to review the weather situation, and to either confirm plans for the proposed IOP, cancel the IOP or
to alter the scienfific goal and/or the scope of the IOP.
Following this meeting, the appropriate coordinators will notify the radiosonde operators and the flight facilities if
there are any changes in the IOP, planned for later in the day.
The FAA will be notified about flight tracks, kite and tethersonde operations and radiosonde releases, so that a
NOTAM can be prepared.
The Wichita office of the NWS will be informed about the timing of radiosonde releases and altitudes. These data
will be available.
0600- 1500 local time:
This period will be devoted to IOP planning, if appropriate. The planning will be directed by the designated SMPS
in collaboration with other coordinators and PIs with specific responsibilities in the IOP. The primary activities to be
completed are flight tracks, radiosonde release times and altitudes, remote sensing scanning procedures and
appropriate communications between aircraft and field participants during the IOP. The decisions reached during
this period are determined by the scientific goals of the IOP and by the equipment that will be available to carry out
the IOP.
Weather conditions and forecasts will be closely monitered to provide the necessary information required in
planning the IOP, and to prepare for the weather briefing during the 1500 local time planning meeting, when the
decision to establish another IOP on the following day is considered.
Principal Investigators, with specific scientific goals, should use this period prior to 1500 local time to prepare a
proposal for an IOP to present at the daily briefing meeting. The relevant information to be prepared
includes:
i) the scientific goal(s) to be met,
ii) the forecast of the meteorological conditions to be expected,
iii) number of flight hours allotted for each scientific goal,
and the current status of the flight time already consumed.
iv) information on aircraft and crew readiness,
v) status of the instrumentation that is crucial to the proposed IOP.
After each IOP has been carried out, the SMPS will either meet with or contact the principal participants in the IOP
to assess the success and/or shortcomings of the operations. A report will be written up for the Field Catalogue and
for a brief presentation in the daily briefing meeting.
1500 - 1600 local time
A daily operations planning meeting will take place at the APO. It will be chaired by the Operations Director, and
all CASES-99 participants are encouraged to attend and participate in the discussions. The planning meetings will
cover at least the following items:
Weather briefing
Report on status of all observing systems, including the number of sondes available (Status Coordinator)
Report on progress in achieving the primary objectives of CASES-99 (Operations Director)
Report on remaining flight hours, maintenance schedule and crew rest for each aircraft (Aircraft Coordinator)
Brief report on the last IOP completed (SMPS)
Presentation of proposals for the next IOP (PIs)
Discussion and decision (Attendees)
Appointment of a SMPS for the IOP
Designation of scientific observers for aircraft missions, if appropriate
Discussion of operational problems in carrying out the IOP, (if any)
Closing announcements
The mission planning meetings will be kept as brief and concise as possible, and should normally run from 60 to 90
minutes.
1600 Preliminary planning the next IOP to be carried out by the designated SMPS and participating PIs and coordinators.
Those involved with the current IOP, beginning at this time, will concentrate on this activity.
2.3.3 Intensive Observing Period
An IOP will be established to meet one or more of the primary CASES-99 goals listed in section 1.2. For present
purposes, there are two principal meteorological conditions that would normally result in the establishment of an
IOP. See section 1.5.
i) Clear sky, calm to light wind conditions in the surface layer, and relatively large static stability that
accompanies these conditions.
ii) Elevated shear layers associated with the presence of the low level jet (LLJ).
Both meteorological conditions may or may not be present at same time. The first meteorological condition (i) is
required to meet goals 2,3 and 4, which are provided in section 1.2.1; the second condition(ii) is required to
meet goal 1, and to assess the role of inertial oscillations in the enhancement of the LLJ, goal 4.
The afternoon briefing meeting represents the first step in the decision making process. The proposal to initiate an
IOP, to begin in 24 hours or later, is determined by the weather forecast and by the proposals prepared by PIs. The
discussions initiated by these two sources of information will be conducted by the Operations Director, who will try
to establish a concensus decision among the participants present at the meeting.
When the decision to conduct an IOP has been reached, the specific goals of the mission will clearly formulated and
then a SMPS will be appointed to carry out the mission. The specific duties of the SMPS are set down in section
2.2.2, and the time line appears in section 2.3.2.
Specific Criteria for an IOP
IOPs will generally fall into different categories, and it is the responsibility of the Operations Director to attempt to
spread the available resources, principally the aircraft hours and sonde releases, equitably among the various goals.
The use of resources will, to some extent, also be determined by the prevailing meteorological conditions during the
month of October. More resources may be allotted to a specific goal if the meteorological conditions indicate a high
probability of success.
Among the many possibilities that will need to be considered during the observational period are:
A complete period of intensive observations, beginning at approximately 1600 local time to capture the evening
transition, that extend through the night and terminate at approximately 0900 - 1000 local time, after the morning
transition.
A period solely devoted to observations of the LLJ and concomitant wave and turbulent activity. Aircraft
flights and radar and lidar scanning strategies will concentrate on this activity.
Other scenarios involve a combination of the first two, or a concentrated effort on another goal, e.g., a transition
period.
A revised operational plan may have to be devised in the field to take advantage of changing meteorological
conditions that were not expected at the time the IOP was initiated, e.g. the development of a LLJ over a short time
period.
2.3.4 Non-IOP Daily Schedule of Operations
All the NOAA profilers and radars that are part of the weather observing network in the United States will provide
continuous data.
The ABLE profilers, sodars, RASS and surface observations at Beaumont, Whitewater and Oxford will provide
continuous data.
The NCAR ISS wind profilers will provide continuous data.
The GLASS. situated at the main site tower location, will take three soundings during the 12 hour evening period
and one sounding at the time of maximum heating, 1400 local time.
No other aircraft flights are anticipated.
The operating schedule for other instrumentation will be made available at the start of the field program, as it
becomes known.
The 60 meter tower contains several instruments, primarily taking high frequency wind and temperature
measurements. The scheduled non-IOP operations will be determined at the start of the field program.
2.4 Operational Modeling Efforts
Participating scientists in CASES-99 are encouraged to conduct in-field research using the data obtained during the
course of the field project. Research operations may be improved by this modeling activity, and such activity can
lend support for proposed IOPs. Brief scientific presentations will be given at the daily planning meeting when
appropriate.
Needs of CASES-99
Given the primarily nighttime interest of CASES-99, it will be crucial to have operational forecasts specific to
CASES-99 scientific goals in time for the morning and afternoon meetings each day. The morning meeting will
require a forecast valid through the following night to 15Z CST the following day. The afternoon meeting, at which
the likelihood of an IOP for 2 nights hence will be assessed, will require therefore, a forecast valid nearly 42 hours
later (15Z CST). Output from the model(s) will be required at two-hour intervals throughout the forecast period.
Both vertical and horizontal cross-sections of temperature, wind and moisture will be required.
CSU Modeling effort
The CSU group led by Bill Cotton plans multiple grid forecasts over the CASES-99 region. They foresee nesting
down to approximately 1.5 km horizontal grid spacing on the finest grid. The exact parameters to be output and
displayed are under discussion at CSU and in conjunction with the CASES-99 participants. They anticipate forecasts
to be available on a website for CASES-99 investigators to look at.
2.5 Weather Information and Weather Forecasts
2.5.1 Climatology in the Walnut Valley
Temperature
Average High Temperatur:70.6F
Average Low Temperature:46.6F
Average Date of First Killing Frost:October 28
Rainfall
Average Monthly Rainfall:2.22 inches
Wettest October:6.69 inches
Driest October:0.00 inches
Yearly Average:29.33 inches
Sky Cover
Average number of clear days:13
Average number of partly cloudy days:7.2
Average number of cloudy days:10.8
Wind
Direction and Average Speed
___________________________________________________________
Dir. N
NE
E
SE S
SW W
NW
%
17.5 6.55 3.75 9.45 36.85 8.5
5.3 9.45
V(kts) 11.33 10.20 8.07 8.50 11.47 9.13 7.60 9.67
___________________________________________________________
% Time Wind 10 kts or Less
___________________________________________________________
Time 00 03 06 09 12 15 18 21
(CST)
%
64 63 65 45 37 38 57 65
Ann. 64 66 66 47 39 39 50 64
Ave.________________________________________________________
Source:National Weather Service, Wichita.
2.5.2 Weather Information
The following sources of weather information are available:
1. National Weather Service Office in Wichita, Dick Elder, MIC.
Forecast room: 316-945-3687 and 316- 945-3942
2. NOAA Weather Radio
- KEC-59(162.55mHz):transmitter site is in northeast Wichita
- WWf-42(162.45mHz)Cowlet County only:transmitter site is in Ponca
City, OK
- WWh-22(162.50mHz):transmitter site is in Beaumont, KS
3. Internet
Homepage address:http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/main.htm
4. Radio (SKYWARN)
- Amateur 146.94mHz:Repeater site-Wichita
- Amateur 145.13mHz:Repeater site-Beaumont
- Business band 460.175mHz
5. Weather Channel on cable TV
2.5.3 Weather Forecasts
Based on 14 June 1999 e-mail Poulos to Cotton at CSU
Preliminary requirements, based on use of the CSU models
The forecasting requirement for the morning meetings to assess the prospects for continued planning of an IOP will
be a forecast valid through the following morning,e.g., a 00UTC (1800 local time) initialized run would have to be a
36 hour forecast to reach 12UTC (0600 local time) on the following day).
A second 36 hour run would be used for the afternoon meeting (presumably based on the 12UTC data from the
morning). There are a number of options, depending on whether RUC, LAPS, etc. are used.
Vertical cross-sections in the wind parallel plane will be needed (perhaps other), and a model sounding at the
CASES-99 main site lat.-long.. CASES-99 will focus mostly on clear-sky cases and the Nighttime Boundary Layer
(NBL), so that the focus will be the identification of the strength and orientation of the Great Plains LLJ and the
NBL depth. Having as many grid points as possible near the model surface will be important to capture the NBL
and its vertical structure. The best radiation scheme for nocturnal cooling is required.
Web site:http://rams.atmos.colostate.edu
3 Instrumentation
Table 1 summarizes the instruments likely to be deployed during the CASES-99 field program. Using the existing
CASES instrumentation provided by ABLE as a framework, the NCAR allocation from the instrument deployment
pool will provide the backbone of CASES-99 instrumentation We currently expect NCAR to deploy the Wyoming
King Air, 9 ISFF flux stations with barographs, one 60 meter tower using the ASTER data management system for
10 Hz+ frequency response (that will anchor the center of the experimental site), two Integrated Sounding Systems
(ISS), multiple level radiometers and four GLASS (balloon) systems.
Supplemental in-situ measurements of the NBL wind, temperature, and humidity profiles and of heat, moisture, and
momentum fluxes at a number of levels would employ a variety of instrument types. The ARM-CART site in the
Towanda sub-basin (NW corner of the WRW), along with other nearby instruments, is currently measuring soil
temperature and moisture. The soil measurements will provide a relatively rare opportunity to initialize soil
conditions in our mesoscale models and improve simulation of moisture flux heterogeneity. Non-tower-based
instrumentation includes multiple aircraft-based winds, temperatures, and turbulence, lidar winds, and remotelysensed water vapor measurements. We will have an FM-CW radar, to provide very high resolution [O(1 m)]
measurements of CN2 and visualization of NBL dynamical phenomena. The FM-CW has already obtained clearance
for use at the CASES site and will not interfere with the NWS Wichita WSR-88D radar. We will also have the
Turbulent Eddy Profiler (TEP), currently under final testing at the University of Massachusetts (Mead et al., 1998;
Pollard et al., 1998). The TEP is a radar capable of measuring winds and turbulent quantities in a 3-dimensional
cone from 150 m AGL to 2000 m AGL with 30 m horizontal and vertical resolution.
ABLE provides three remote sensing sites where vertical profiles of wind and temperature are sampled by 915-MHz
radar wind profilers, Doppler acoustic sounders, and radio acoustic sounding systems (RASS). These measurements
extend into and through the NBL and will provide both surface and upper-level conditions. Each site is also
instrumented with a surface flux station, and an eddy correlation flux station is located at the ARM-CART site in the
northern portion of the WRW. NOAA/ETL plans to make the HRDL (lidar) system available for CASES-99 with ~
3 m range gates. CASES-99 is also very fortunate to be receiving instrumentation committed by European
colleagues (see below).
Table 1: Expected instrumentation and resources for CASES-99
Instrument
Provider
Data and/or Comments
-------------- ----------------------------------Aircraft (3)
Wyoming King Air NCAR Deployment turbulence, radiation in-flight
The Long EZ NOAA/ARL Tim Crawford turbulence, radiation, 50 m AGL or less at night
Twin Otter NOAA/ARL McMillen turbulence, radiation, 50 m AGL
Barographs (7)
7 NCAR Deployment P at 1 Pa at 1 Hz
Archived data UCAR/JOSS standard meteorological variables, model output grids, satellite data, Sept 21 - Nov 2,
1999
Ceilometer (2)
1 Vaisala Oyj, Risoe Nat'l Lab backscatter, continuous cloud base
1 ABLE - Klazura, Coulter backscatter, continuous cloud base
CO2 - fast resp (4)
2 Argonne, Wesely 20 Hz, 2 levels on 60 m tower
2 NCAR ATD 20 Hz, 2 levels on 60 m tower
Data Hub
Argonne, ABLE storage, archive, in place
Energy Balance (1)
With soil systems Argonne E balance, Bowen Ratio
Hot-wire Anem. (3)
3 Blumen, Mahrt 9.6 kHz u, v, w, dissipation, 40, 20, 10 m
Instrument pad
Argonne onsite, available
Sounding Systems (4)
2 ISS - Profiler and MAPR, Glass, Tower NCAR Deployment u, v, RH, T, p with height
2 GLASS NCAR Deployment standard meteorological variables
Lidars (3)
Raman Dan Cooper, LANL backscatter, moisture, 1.5 m res, 5Hz staring, scans
Scanning doppler NOAA - Banta/Newsome 30 m gates, 3 km range, radial winds
Wind profiler Eichinger - Iowa 8 m gates, vertically staring, u, v for 400 m
Microbarographs (9)
3 Joan Cuxart, Spain P at 0.03 Pa at 1 Hz
6 Carmen Nappo, NOAA 0.5 Hz 0.1 Pa pressure fluctuation
Mini-sodars (5)
3 ABLE, onsite u, v, w every 8 m in z every 15 min, in place
2 Argonne, Coulter u, v, w every 8 m in z every 15 min, in place
Other (2)
Satellite Receiver Argonne, ABLE At Argonne National Lab
Satellite Receiver NCAR by equipment request
Pyrgeometers (10)
10 NCAR ATD, Horst and Sun at 30m on the 55m tower, 1 Hz, 1 W/M 2
Radars (4)
WSR-88D NWS Wichita Reflectivity
3 WSR-88D Other NWS sites Reflectivity
Cloud Radar ARM Site in WRW Cloud dimensions and phase
FM-CW UMass, Frasier CN2 minimum resolution 0.5 m every 8 seconds
Rain Gauges (44)
44 Standard Rich Cuenca, OSU Towanda sub-basin rainfall
RASS (3)
3 ABLE sites, Tv every 15 min at 1°C
Rawinsondes (6)
4 NCAR ATD - GLASS, ISS u, v, T, rh in 4.5-6m vertical resolution
1 LANL - Cooper, Archuleta u, v, T, rh in 6-8m vertical resolution
1 ABLE - Klazura, Coulter u, v, T, rh in 6-8m vertical resolution
Scintillometers (3)
2 Henk deBruin Heat/mom flux, to test M-O theory, 150 m, 1 km
1 Argonne, Coulter Heat/mom flux, to test M-O theory
Sodars (2)
1 Remtech LANL - Cooper/Archuleta u, v, w, sigma w, sigma q per 15 min, 30 m gates
Extra Sonics: 3-D (7)
2 Dave Miller, UConn 200 Hz, Tv, u, v, w, on 60 m tower @ 2.5 and 5 m
2 Mahrt, Oregon State 10 Hz, Tv, u, v, w, on 60 m tower
1 Coulter - Argonne 10 Hz, Tv, u, v, w, on 60 m tower
1 Doran - PNNL 10 Hz, Tv, u, v, w, on 60 m tower
Sonics: 2-D (6)
6 Mahrt, Oregon State Tv, u, v, 2 for mini-valley, others at 1-2 m elsewhere
Soil Heat Flux Plate Maria Rosa Soler, Spain
Soil Moisture (~18)
~10 Probes Rich Cuenca 100 m2 cross, moisture
3 Maria Rosa Soler/Cuxart, Spain
5 Argonne via ABLE sites
Soil Sampling (11)
Russ Qualls, CU Boulder Temperature, moisture, two depths
Soil Temperature (13)
~10 Profiles Rich Cuenca Celsius temp to 1 meter
3 Spain, Maria Rosa Soler/Cuxart
Surface Flux Towers (23) 18 available for deployment 5 on 60 m tower or fixed elsewhere
5 Argonne at WRW 10 Hz u,v,w, T, RH, already sited
6 ISFF NCAR ATD 20 Hz u,v,w, T, RH, 3 on 60 m tower, 6 10 m tow
1 De Bruin, Netherlands 10 Hz u,v,w, T, RH
1 NOAA-ARL, w/ Twin Otter 10 Hz u,v,w, T, RH
1 Univ. Barcelona/Cuxart/Soler 10 Hz u,v,w, T, RH, 2 levels (3 & 10 m)
1 Hi-resolution Miller - UConn 200 Hz hot film, + sonic 40Hz wspd, dir, T, RH
4 10 m Prueger/Hatfield - NSTL 10 Hz u,v,w, T, RH, soil heat flux, temperature, skin T
2 Russ Qualls, CU Boulder Fluxes, momentum, temperature, moisture
2 Eichinger - Iowa Fluxes, 20 Hz, u, v, w, Tv
Tethered Balloons (2)
1 Argonne, Coulter u, v, T, RH
1 Joan Cuxart, Spain u, v, T, RH
Thermistors (8)
8 Mahrt - Oregon State temperature, slow response, cross-drainage
8 Hatfield - Nat. Soil Tilth Lab temperature, slow response, cross-drainage
Thermocouples 5 Hz (34)
33 Lee, Yale University, on the 60 m tower
Thermometers 1 Hz (8)
8 NCAR ATD on the 60 m tower
Turbulent Eddy Profiler (1)
UMass, Frasier 3-d turbulent fluxes at 30 m horiz and vert res (cone)
Wind Profilers (13)
6 Profiler network Wind speed, direction, meso-a to meso-b scale
3 ARM CART Wind speed, direction, meso-b scale
3 Argonne at WRW Wind speed, direction, meso-b scale, 60 m gates
3. 1 Network Design and Surface Observations
The CASES-99 main site in Leon Kansas is a 3x5 km relatively level field containing pastureland grasses.
Most of the instruments will be located on this plot of land in order make intensive field observations of the
phenomena that populate the stable nighttime boundary layer. This site represents the smallest instrumented domain
in an ever decreasing set of instrumented sites that are maintained for operational and research needs.
The surface facilities are located at the main site and at the location of the ISS facilities, including the site of
the ABLE Beaumont profiler. Some of these facilities operate continuously and some are only in operation at
specified times.
Time hacks to GPS time will be one each day to all instrumentation to ensure data synchronization.
4. Remote Sensing, Kite and Radiosonde Facilities
4.1. Outline
Profiler, Radar, Lidar, Sodar and Kite characteristics for CASES-99 operations
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be
appropriate).
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
i. Evening and morning transitions
ii low-level jet
iii turbulence in the LLJ
iv density current (drainage flow)
v fluxes
Please respond to all that apply. If you are planning any special scanning strategies, one or more figures would be
useful.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
4.2 Basic Characteristics of On-Site Facilities
4.2.1
PROFILERS
TEP (Steve Frasier, U Mass)
The Turbulent Eddy Profiler (TEP) is a volume-imaging 915 MHz radar wind profiler. It consists of a transmitter
and an array of 90 receivers. Instrument specifications are contained in the following table:
Operation Freq:
Range Coverage:
Range Resolution:
915 MHz
0.2-2.5 km
30 m
Transmitter
----------Peak Power:
20 kW
Pulse Rep. Freq:
40 kHz
Average Power:
<200 W
Antenna Beamwidth: 25 degrees
Receiving Array
--------------# of elements:
90
Diameter:
6m
Focused Beamwidth:
3.5 degree
All receiving elements sample I and Q time-series from each range gate. Raw data is recorded. Post-processing
options include beamforming and spaced antenna techniques.
TEP will operate episodically due to the large volume of data it generates. We will operate it during IOPs
(morning/evening transitions, low-level jets) and at other times for specific intercomparisons (FMCW, lidars). At
other times, we will operate a small subset of receiving elements which will mimic a more conventional wind
profiler.
TEP will not produce real-time results from its 90 receivers. Available products anticipated during CASES will be
limited to vertical profiles of reflectivity/winds obtained from a few elements. Post-experiment data products will
include volumetrically resolved reflectivity and winds.
A website is available at http://acadia.ecs.umass.edu/html/tep.
Wind Lidar Profiler characteristics for CASES-99 operations (Bill Eichinger. University of Iowa)
1. Basic characteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
Measurement:
Vertical Resolution:
Temporal Resolution:
Accuracy:
Distance:
Power Requirement:
Vertical soundings of horizontal wind speed and direction
6 meters
(Depending on aerosol loading, resolution to 3 meters is possible)
2 minutes
(Depending on aerosol loading, shorter periods are possible)
~0.25 m/s between 0.5 m/s and 10 m/s
Throughout the depth of the boundary layer (lack of aerosols and/or structure
limits the effectiveness of the device)
~2 kW
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? We intend to operate the equipment 24 hours a day
during IOPs. Some time each day (about a half hour) will be used to
download data and for maintenance of the equipment.
Episodically? We intend to operate the equipment to observe the evening
and morning transitions and continuously during the evening during non-IOP
periods.
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
No special strategies are planned to observe specific events. We invite
comments and suggestions and will accommodate them if at all possible.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the
JOSS effort, intercomparisons with other instruments, etc.?
In as much as this is a new instrument, we intend to participate in
intercomparisons with other wind sensors to the maximum extent practical
and would appreciate any assistance in co- location and inclusion in such
activities. We anticipate a delay of several months to process the data
before we provide the wind data to the collaboration.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1,
available on a Web Site? Supply address.
Sorry not yet.
4.2.2 RADAR
FMCW Radar (Steve Frasier, U Mass)
The UMass FMCW S-band radar can resolve the variations in refractive index structure of the atmosphere at a
spatial resolution of 2.5 m. It is similar in design to the Army's FMCW radar currently stationed at Dugway. A
table of operating characteristics follows:
Radar Characteristics
Frequency:
2.91-2.97 GHz
Peak Power:
250 W cont.
Sweep time:
45 msec
Sweep bandwidth: 60 MHz
Range resolution: 2.5 m
Height Coverage: 2.5 km
Beamwidth:
3 deg
We intend to operate the FMCW radar continuously during IOPs, and nearly continuously during other periods.
Raw data will be recorded in the form of vertical profiles of reflected field (I and Q) at approximately 20 Hz.
Averaged profiles will be made available in near-real-time in the form of GIF or JPG images. These images can be
updated at approx. 5 minute intervals.
NOTE:
The FMCW radar will be co-located with the Turbulent Eddy Profiler at the northwest corner where 120 street and
Ellis road intersect (see figure 4). This will enable sharing of lab space for radar electronics, will permit comparison
between radars, and would place the data nearer the NCAR trailer enabling easier dissemination of results in the
field (we're assuming).
Generator operation appears to have been ruled out near the tower. If power is available, the FMCW can also be
sited near Ellis Road to the south of the 60m tower. In this case, a shed would be required to house radar
electronics. This (and the antenna) may be a source for flow distortion effects at the tower for winds from the SE.
4.2.3
LIDARS
Bob Banta, NOAA ETL
1. Basic characteristics of equipment
The High-Resolution Doppler Lidar (HRDL) is a coherent Doppler lidar that operates at the eye-safe, near-infrared
wavelength of 2.02 \346m. HRDL measures 1) the radial component ur of lower-atmospheric winds (i.e., parallel
to the laser line of sight) and 2) the backscatter intensity from naturally occurring and anthropogenic aerosols,
generally up to 2-4 km above ground level. Table 1 summarizes the basic characteristics of the HRDL system. Table
1 summarizes the basic characteristics of the HRDL system. Because system performance is continually upgraded,
many of these parameters may be improved by the time HRDL is deployed. The scanner system allows the beam to
be scanned through the entire azimuth range as well as through elevation angles from about -10o to 90o. This
provides better than full upper hemispheric coverage. The data acquisition system is coupled into a real-time
display. GUI-based software provides the operator with control over the scanner, data system, and display system.
The entire system (laser/optics, scanner, computer/data acquisition system, and operator work space) is housed
inside a seatainer which can be transported using a semi-tractor trailer rig. Some technical details are as follows.
HRDL employs a diode-pumped, solid-state laser. The Q-switched pulse laser cavity contains a Tm:Lu,YAG crystal
that is double-end pumped by two fiber-coupled 785 nm diode lasers. The cavity is Q-switched using an acoustooptic modulator. The local oscillator is a Tm:YAG continuous-wave laser. The pulse laser cavity is frequency
stabilized with respect to the local oscillator using an electronic lock loop that drives a piezoelectric output coupler.
The Q-switched cavity produces pulse energies in the range from 1 to 2 mJ with pulse durations of 200 ns, which
results in a minimum range resolution of 30 m. An improved frequency stabilization technique is currently being
field tested. The new stabilization technique will allow pulse repetition frequencies (PRF's) as high as 800 Hz
without loss of pulse energy. This was previously limited to 200 Hz because of the additional operations necessary
in the data acquisition system for single-shot frequency correction.
Table 1 Performance characteristics of the High Resolution Doppler Lidar (HRDL)
Wavelength (æm)
2.02
Pulse energy (mJ)
1 to 2
Range resolution (m)
30
PRF (Hz)
>200
Minimum range (m)
200
Maximum range (km)
2 to 9
Velocity accuracy* (cm s-1)
<10
Velocity range (m s-1)
ñ25
Max. scan rate (deg.s-1)
60
Elevation scan coverage (deg)
-10 to 90
Azimuth scan coverage (deg)
360
Maximum range varies depending upon local aerosol concentration
* Based on hard target return
2) How frequently will your system be in operation?
HRDL requires attended operation. We plan to have enough crews (2 people each) to acquire data continuously
during an IOP. It will be operated episodically otherwise. During an IOP we anticipate only short interruptions
between different scan types. This is due to the time it takes for the operator to stop the current scan and start a new
scan (a few seconds), or to swap out data tapes (~1 min).
3) Special strategies for IOPs: Scan strategies
The three most basic types of scans are 1) vertical-slice, or Range-Height Indicator (RHI), scans, during which
the lidar scans in elevation while maintaining a constant azimuth; 2) azimuth, or Plan-Postion Indicator (PPI), scan,
during which the scanner scans in azimuth while maintaining a constant elevation; and 3) stare, or fixed beam,
which is really not a scan at all. During a stare the laser line of sight is held fixed at a given azimuth and elevation;
often this is used pointing vertically to document the behavior of the vertical velocity w.
Full vertical-slice scans (horizon to horizon, or 'over the top') give excellent views of the vertical structure of the
ur and aerosol backscatter fields, including layers and features such as waves and coherent eddies, along any chosen
azimuth. A full azimuth, or PPI, scan (0o to 360o) shows the horizontal variability of the winds in detail over
a relatively large area. Such full azimuth scans are used to calculate vertical profiles of the horizontal wind (both
direction and speed) and turbulence quantities such as turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) and momentum flux using
velocity-azimuth-display (VAD) techniques.
An important consideration in choosing scan parameters is the resolution required both in space and time.
Whereas range resolution is limited by the pulse width, the angular resolution is controlled by the scan rate, PRF,
and the degree of pulse accumulation (averaging). Clearly, it is desirable to obtain as complete a picture of the
surrounding flow structure as possible. However, a full 360o PPI scan may take 1-3 minutes at an angular resolution
of 1o, during which time the flow field may change, particularly at small scales. Such broad coverage scans are
necessary to help identify features of interest. When a particularly interesting region is identified the operator
can isolate that region by performing a series of scans with more restricted angular coverage, allowing for finer
spatial and temporal resolution of that region.
A strategy that has worked well for us in previous experiments is to perform a set of routine survey scans at
regular intervals, say every half hour or hour. These survey scans consist of full 360o PPI's at several elevation
angles (usually emphasizing the lower elevations to show horizontal variability in the near-surface flow) and a
sequence of full horizon-to-horizon vertical-slice scans performed every 30o around the compass to identify features
in the vertical flow structure. The PPI scans are also used to provide a set of VAD wind profiles. The survey-scan
set may take 10-15 min out of each half hour, leaving 15-20 min for specialized scans to investigate specific
features. The specialized scans would consist of repeated PPI or vertical scans with limited angular extent (i.e.,
sectors) to provide high spatial and temporal resolution.
Specialized vertical-slice scans will be performed to reveal the vertical structure of gravity waves, KH waves,
coherent turbulent structure and other flow features. These scans are especially effective in showing vertical layers
of the flow or aerosol backscatter fields. Repeated vertical sector scans can be used to provide valuable information
about the wavelength, propagation speed and time dependence of gravity waves and other flow phenomena.
Specialized PPI scans will be performed to map out the horizontal structure and evolution of flow features such
as gravity waves, drainage flows, LLJ's, turbulent bursts and other coherent structures using repeated horizontal
sector scans and repeated volume scans. Sector scans are simply PPI's performed over a limited azimuth range.
Volume scans consist of a series of sector scans at incremented elevation angles.
In previous experiments vertical staring has been employed successfully to obtain vertical velocity statistics in
the daytime convective boundary layer (CBL). However, because the minimum range of HRDL is >100 m and
much of the interesting activity in the very stable boundary layer (VSBL) is below that level, vertically pointing
"scans" will probably be of limited value in studies of the VSBL. We do, however, plan to employ vertical staring
"scans" to study the evening transition period, when the higher turbulence intensities maintained in the daytime CBL
by surface heating collapse to lower intensities at night. Horizontal staring either into or down wind is potentially
useful for determining statistics of the streamwise velocity component.
4) Anything else of interest (non IOP)?
While at CASES we also plan to do the following:
a) Daytime operations, including:
Volume scans for 4DDA adjoint studies concentrating on CBL, and VAD scans to study the TKE and
momentum flux profiles in the CBL.
b) Intercomparison with tower hot wire (turbulence dissipation versus spectral width) using a long time series
from a stare during a morning/evening transition.
c) Coordinated scans with other instrumentation, including the Turbulence Eddy Profiler (TEP), kitesonde,
helipod, other lidars, etc.
5) For more information see: http://www2.etl.noaa.gov/
Dan Cooper, LANL
Table 1. Lidar system configuration.
Lidar system:
Operating period:
Output Wavelength:
Return SignalElastic:
N2:
H2O:
Energy per Pulse:
Pulse Length
Max. Repetition Rate:
Beam Divergence:
Beam expansion:
Telescope:
Detector:
Filters:
Digitizer rate:
Range resolution
Scanner Angular Resolution:
Water vapor
Continuous
248 nm
248 nm
263 nm
273 nm
0.25 J
0.10 ns
200 Hz
3 mrad
50 mm X 100 mm
61 cm, F/8, Cassegrain
Side-on PMT
3 nm wide, 10% Transmission
100 Mhz
Near field:1.5 m
0.03 degrees
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
Evening only
Temperature
Night
532 nm
R1:
R2:
532 nm
529.1 nm
530.4 nm
0.07 J
0.12 ns
50 Hz
3 mrad
Side-on PMT
0.5 nm wide, 72% Transmission
100 Mhz
1.5 m
< 0.01 degrees
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
i. Evening and morning transitions
ii low-level jet
iii turbulence in the LLJ
iv density current (drainage flow)
v fluxes
Please respond to all that apply. If you are planning any special scanning strategies, one or more figures would be
useful.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.?
See section 7.5 for SAFETY ISSUES related to this lidar.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Experimental Atmospheric and Climate Physics
MS C300
Los Alamos, NM 87545
(505) 665 6501 voice
(505) 667 7460 fax
Scanning Aerosol Lidar characteristics for CASES-99 operations (Bill Eichinger, University of Iowa)
1. Basic characteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
Measurement:
Vertical Resolution:
Horizontal Resolution:
Temporal Resolution:
Accuracy:
Distance:
horizontal wind speed and direction
<100 meters
250 meters
30 minutes
~0.5 m/s
6 - 8 km depending on the depth of the boundary layer and the availability of
aerosols and/or structure
Area over which measurements may be taken: 200 degrees horizontally to 8 km.
Measurement:
Range Resolution:
Angular Resolution:
Temporal Resolution:
Distance:
visualizations of aerosol structure aloft in a vertical plane
2.5 meters
~0.25 degrees
30 seconds to a minute
6 - 8 km depending on the depth of the boundary layer and
the availability of aerosols and/or structure
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? We intend to operate the equipment 24 hours a day during IOPs. Some time each day (about an
hour) will be used to download data and for maintenance of the equipment.
Episodically? We intend to operate the equipment to observe the evening and morning transitions and continuously
during the evening during non-IOP periods.
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
i. Evening and morning transitions
We plan on making vertical slices of the atmosphere during the transitions so as to provide a "movie" of
how the transition occurs. During the transitions, the details of how the layers form is believed to be more
important than the wind parameters.
ii low-level jet
We plan on scanning to determine the extent, depth, and variations in the low level jet by attempting to
make velocity measurements in and around the jet within the area we can scan.
iii turbulence in the LLJ
We can observe the size of structures within the jet, but we cannot determine turbulence parameters.
iv density current (drainage flow)
Because of the proximity to the ground, this flow may be difficult to measure, but it will be attempted.
v fluxes
Please respond to all that apply. If you are planning any special scanning strategies, one or more figures would be
useful.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.?
This device will generate a very large amount of data. As is usual with scanning lidars and radars,
providing the data/visualizations requires a large data base and the appropriate software. We anticipate a delay of
several months to process the data to put it in some kind of convenient form before we provide it to the
collaboration. Assistance/suggestions as to how the data might be provided are welcome.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
Sorry not yet.
4.2.4
SODAR
Rich Coulter, ANL
Instrument
beams
size
sodar 1
sec
sodar 2
sec
Frequency Sample rate(nom)/beam
power req.
1 - 2 kHz
1/6
1 (vert)
2 X 2 X 2 m 2 kW
4.5 kHz
1/1.5
3
1 X 1 X 1 m 2 kW
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
Continuously
#
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
Sample 3 beams only on rwps, 15sec (or less) dwell time, low power only.
Record spectra
Perhaps operate minisodar (sodar 2 above) in vertical-only mode to enhance sample rate.
These strategies will probably apply in all the situations below.
During iv, tethersonde may operate within "gullies" near tower 10.
i. Evening and morning transitions
ii low-level jet
iii turbulence in the LLJ
iv density current (drainage flow)
v fluxes
Please respond to all that apply. If you are planning any special scanning strategies, one or more figures would
be useful.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
Pictures and information can be obtained at:
http://www.atmos.anl.gov/ABLE
Data formats located at http://www.atmos.anl.gov/ABLE/dataarchive.html
Also links to local weather and site info.
Other instruments :
laser scintillometer: 640 nm wavelength over 150-200 m path about 3 m above surface (Class 3a eye save laser)
Tethersonde 0 - 500 m above surface with standard met instrumentation 5th Wheel trailer for center of
operations for us and any other interested parties.
4.2.5
KITE
Ben Balsley,
CIRES, U Colorado
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
One kite or balloon flying to approximately 1 km altitude on a Kevlar tether. Ground-based system will be either a
panel truck or equivalent. Kite used for winds > about 6-7 m/s; balloon employed for lighter winds. Commercial
power would be nice but is not essential (the truck generator will serve). Observations typically at night, with some
additional daytime periods. Kite will fly downwind at an elevation angle between about 45-75 degrees depending on
wind speed. We will use telemetery channels in the 403 MHz (tuneable 400-406) and 75 MHz bands.
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
Certainly during all major IOPS and as frequently as possible during the entire period. Depends on wind conditions.
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
i. Evening and morning transitions: In conjunction with the on-line FMCW radar information that will show the
heights of any unstable regions, both the helipod and the kites will attempt to measure turbulence structure both
within and outside of these regions. The kite will be used to obtain vertical profiles of the structure while the helipod
will obtain horizontal details. The kite will also measure profiles of other quantities (winds, temperatures, humidity)
ii low-level jet
Good for kite flights, provided jet winds are < about 20 m/s. We plan to profile the jet
(winds, temperatures, humidity) and obtain vertical profiles of high-resolution turbulence in the region.
iii turbulence in the LLJ
See previous comment. We will obtain high time resolution measurements of both
temperature and velocity fluctuations.
iv density current (drainage flow) Nothing here
v fluxes
Nothing here at this point
Please respond to all that apply. If you are planning any special scanning strategies, one or more figures would
be useful.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.?
Basically, our observational program will be greatly facilitated by online information from the FMCW radar,
which will locate unstable regions to be measured. Also it will be advisable to have radio communications with the
aircraft during their flights if they will be anywhere close to the kite/balloon platforms.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
Not at this time
4.2.6 RADIOSONDES
GLASS radiosondes
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
Profiles of atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature, and relative humidity are obtained from expendable
radiosondes suspended below a helium-filled balloon and send back to a ground station via a radio transmitter. Wind
speed and direction are measured by tracking elevation and azimuth of the radiosonde using Navigational Aid
signals from moving satellites in space (GPS). The GLASS system also includes a meteorological surface
observation station that measures thesame thermodynamic state properties at ground level.
The sites and number of sondes at each site are still TBD.
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
episodically
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
4 soundings from each of the 3 radiosondes colocated with a profiler during 8 night-time IOPs (every 4 hours).
7 soundings will be taken during the 3 hour evolution of either the evening or morning transition at the main
site.
During non-IOP situations, 1 sounding will be taken at the time of maximum heating at the main site.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.?
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
A summary of GLASS is located at http://www.atd.ucar.edu/dir_off/facilities/laof.html#glass
GLASS replaces CLASS (they use different tracking systems); info on CLASS is at
http://www.atd.ucar.edu/sssf/facilities/class/class.html
4.3 Argonne Boundary Layer Experiment (ABLE) Sites
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
type of equipment:
915 MHz boundary-layer profilers
sites:
ABLE: Beaumont 37.627N 96.538W
Oxford 37.273N 97.095W
Whitewater 37.841N 97.186W
data returned:
low-power mode: wind speed and direction
from 90 m to 2.4 km in 58 m steps;
hourly averages
high-power mode: wind speed and direction
from 318 m to 4.5 km in 200 m steps;
hourly averages
mini-sodar: wind speed and direction from
10 m to 200 m in 5 m steps; hourly
temperature profiles: 97 m to 2.4 km in
~ 100 m steps; hourly
surface AWS station @ each 915 site:
2 m T, RH, 10m
wind speed and direction; every minute.
rain guage, but it may not
function at every site.
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
continuously
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
none
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.?
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
YES: http://gonzalo.er.anl.gov/ABLE/
4.4 NOAA Wind Profiler Sites
NOAA 404 MHz profilers
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be
appropriate).
type of equipment:
operating frequency:
sites:
data returned:
time resolution:
height range and
resolution:
doppler wind profilers
449 MHz.
29 in US, 7 in KS + OK
site locations:
map at http://www-dd.fsl.noaa.gov/online.html
6-minute; hourly averages available on web
500 m to 16.25 km in 250 m range gates
For CASES99, the most important sites are probably the Kansas and Oklahoma sites:
site
N lat (deg min sec)
Haviland, KS
37 39 08
Hillsboro, KS
38 18 33
Neodesha, KS
37 22 48
W long (deg min sec)
99 05 28
97 17 44
95 38 05
Haskell, OK
35 40 57
95 51 48
Lamont, OK
36 41 28
97 28 57
Purcell, OK
34 58 47
97 31 07
Vici, OK
36 04 19
99 13 03
For the week of 11 June 1999 to 17 June 1999, the Vici profiler only returned data for 3% of the time.
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
continuously: 6-minute data are averaged into hourly bins and displayed on the web. The winds displayed at each
height are an hour average from the preceding hour of data, e.g., 6-minute data acquired between 1600-1700 UTC
would be averaged and displayed with the time stamp of 1700 UTC.
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
none.
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.?
Some of the profilers are colocated with RASS (discussed below).
Data is stored at the web site noted below.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1,
available on a Web Site? Supply address.
YES: http://www-dd.fsl.noaa.gov/online.html
4.5
ARM-CART 915 MHz profilers
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be
appropriate).
equipment type:
sites:
Lamont (ARM CART CF)
Medecine Lodge, KS
Meeker, OK
915 MHz boundary-layer wind
profiler (see above)
36.601 N 97.488 W
37.280 N 98.933 W
35.551 N 96.864 W
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
continuously
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
none
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc. The JOSS page asks specifically about who would be interested in this data, so I assume that
Greg S. has made arrangements to have this data.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
http://www.arm.gov/docs/instruments/static/rwpr.html
4.6 NOAA WSR-88D Radar
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
NEXRAD doppler radar. Provides images of reflectivity. I'm not clear on how one would get access to this data it seems that there is a private contractor that provides it to the public instead of the NWS.
hourly gif images are available on the web at http://www.rap.ucar.edu/weather/radar.html
low-level reflectivities and velocities are available through the web page cited above, but only to users with
ucar.edu accounts.
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
continuously
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
Unknown
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.?
JOSS should ensure that they archive all the hourly gifs off for the ICT area throughout the month of October.
The velocity data might also be useful for someone, so they should try to get that, too.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site?
data available at http://www.rap.ucar.edu/weather/radar.html.
discussion of data availability is at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/data.html and
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oso/oso1/oso15/oso153/SECC11R2.htm
SEE PROFILER MAP FOR LOCATION IN RELATION TO LEON
4.7 RADIOSONDES off-site
4.7.1 NOAA/NWS Radiosonde Sites
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
sondes released from Topeka (180 km from Leon), Dodge City (280 km from Leon), Oklahoma City (240 km
from Leon) at 00 and 1200 UTC every day
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
continuously at 12 hr resolution
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
none
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.
JOSS should arrange with NWS for us to have access to this data. Codiac (http://www.joss.ucar.edu/codiac/)
stores the last three months of this data on-line, so it should be a simple matter to make sure that Oct 99 data for
these three sites is also archived.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
data can be downloaded from http://www.joss.ucar.edu/codiac/
Another helpful site is http://www.aces.edu/department/nws/upperair/radiosnd.html
4.7.2 ARM-CART sondes
1. Basic charcteristics of your equipment (a TABLE would be appropriate).
standard radiosondes. They call them "balloon-borne sounding systems"
sites: Ctrl Fclty
36.61N 97.49W
Hillsboro
38.30N 97.30W
Vici
36.07 99.20
Morris, OK
35.68 95.85
Purcell
34.97 97.42
Current sampling rate:
Thermodynamic variables (PTU) every 2 seconds throughout the flight.
Wind variables (speed, direction) every 10 seconds throughout the flight.
Nominal rate of ascent ~ 5 ms^{-1}
2. How frequently will your equipment be in operation?
Continuously? Episodically?
continuously. During SGP-97, they had launches every 3 hours, but I cannot determine if that was just for an IOP
or if they always do that. For the month of June 99, sondes were launched only from Lamont CF, with varying
frequencies (3x/day - 1x/day). Launch frequency will be updated during CASES99.
3. Special strategies for IOPs:
none
4. Anything else of interest, e.g., data management not encompassed by the JOSS effort, intercomparisons with
other instruments, etc.
5. Is a more expanded version of this information, particularly no. 1, available on a Web Site? Supply address.
http://www.arm.gov/docs/instruments/static/bbss.html
Questions should be to Barry Lesht, bmlesht@anl.gov
5. Aircraft and Operations
This section describes the aircraft platforms and instrumentation, the aircraft bases at Jabara and El Dorado, crew
rest requirements and flight restrictions, anticipated flight tracks, mission decisions and planning, in-flight decision
needs, debriefing, post-mission data analysis and quality control, and port-experiment data processing and quality
control.
5.1 Aircraft Platforms and Instrumentation
5.1.1 Wyoming King Air
5.1.1.1 Operational Characteristics
Aircraft:
Payload:
Base:
Distance/Ferry time to CF:
Flight Speed:
Max. Flight Range:
Max. Flight Duration:
Beechcraft King Air model 200T
14,000 lb
Colonel Jabara (KAAO) Wichita
~ 70 km, 15 minutes
160 kts (research), 240 kts (cruise)
800 km (research), 1000 km (cruise)
~ 5 hrs.
Lowest AGL, day/night:
30m/90 m (dependent on
circumstances)
5.1.1.2 Instrumentation
(to be completed - Mark, please provide??)
5.1.1.3 Flight Restrictions
Low-altitude waiver may be necessary. The King Air will be a
single-pilot operation, though it will be necessary to have a co-pilot
for radio communications and flight coordination. In most cases, this function
will be performed by University of Wyoming personnel, but other assistance may
also be required. Other platforms, altitudes, ...... (as before)
5.1.2 NOAA Twin Otter
5.1.2.1 Operational Characteristics
Aircraft:
Payload:
Base:
Distance/Ferry time to CF:
Flight Speed:
Max. Flight Range:
Max. Flight Duration:
Lowest AGL, day/night:
DeHavilland DH-6 Twin Otter, Series 300
4800 lb, including 2500 lb fuel
Colonel Jabara (KAAO) Wichita
~ 45 miles, 15 minutes
110 kts (research), 120 kts (cruise)
800 km (research), 1000 km (cruise)
~ 4.2 hrs.
30m/160 m (dependent on circumstances)
5.1.2.2 Instrumentation
Lots. Full complement of turbulence measurement equipment. All state variables. Air chemistry - only ozone in this
configuration.
5.1.2.3 Flight Restrictions
Low-altitude waiver may be necessary. The Twin Otter will be a dual-pilot operation. Other platforms, altitudes, and
crew rest will all need to be considered. Consecutive daily flights are possible, but with the restriction that the pilot
will receive one day off if he has flown six consecutive days. If two missions are flown in a single day, the
following day is a down day unless there are exceptional conditions. In all cases, the pilot will make the final
decision on any flight.
5.1.3 LONG-EZ
5.1.3.1 Operational Characteristics (Rick - help please??)
Aircraft:
Payload:
Base:
Distance/Ferry time to CF: minimal
Flight Speed:
??
??
El Dorado
100 kts (research)
Max. Flight Range:
Max. Flight Duration:
Lowest AGL, day/night:
3300 km (cruise)
6 hr during data collection
(10-18 hr aircraft maximum)
30-50 m/50 m (assuming unobstructed,
unpopulated track can be found)
5.1.3.2 Instrumentation
(to be completed - Rick??)
5.1.3.3 Flight Restrictions
(to be completed - same as/different from 5.1.1.3??)
5.2 Aircraft Bases
5.2.1
Colonel Jabara (KAAO) Wichita
info. on facilities, hanger, power, fuel, runway length, ILS landing, other - Mark, is all of this really
needed?? (to be completed)
5.2.2
El Dorado
info. on facilities, hanger, power, fuel, runway length, ILS landing, other - Rick, is all of this really
needed?? (to be completed)
5.3
General Information
5.3.1 IOP Flight Notifications
Tentative flight plans will be conveyed to flight crews 24 hours prior to a scheduled IOP. As IOP plans
progress, flight crews will be notified of more specific flight plans at least 8 hours prior a specific flight segment.
5.3.2 In-Flight Communications
Communications among aircraft and between aircraft and the AC will occur on frequency 122.9 MHz,
123.45 KHz, or whatever other frequency is found to provide the least interference (see 2.1.2 above).
5.3.3 Flight Safety Issues
5.3.3.1 Aircraft Coordination
IOP in-flight coordination will be the responsibility of the aircraft coordinator (AC). Coordination among
pilots, where necessary, will be via the common frequency. For most anticipated flight tracks, however, flight
segments will be parallel. When perpendicular flight segments are anticipated, coordination will be real time, and
only with consent of all pilots.
5.3.3.2 Tower Fly-bys/Data Validation
Minimum horizontal distance, 1/2 mile (??) downwind (Mark, Rick ??)
5.3.3.3 Eye Safety/Lasers
Lasers must be operated only in specified modes so as to insure that there is no possibility for illuminating
any aircraft. These modes, assumed to include a fixed azimuth (or azimuths) for each laser with altitude scanning,
will be communicated to the pilots prior to each IOP. No departures from these advertised scan patterns will be
allowed. When an aircraft needs to penetrate a scanning plane, the laser will be turned off or the beam will be
directed well below the minimum flight altitude. (Mark, Rick - comments??)
5.3.3.4 Kite Status
It will be essential for aircraft operations close to the tower and CF to insure that the kite location is known,
that the kite is lighted, and that the AC insures a minimum spacing of 1/2 mile between aircraft and the kite
and tether. (Mark, Rick - comments??)
5.3.3.5 Crew Rest and Pilot Fatigue
Pilot fatigue is a factor that will need to be considered carefully. All aircraft will have only one pilot, and
this will place constraints on the length and succession of flights. We do not anticipate flying multiple successive
days, but we will need to be aware of pilot needs. In all cases, the pilots will have the final say on whether a mission
is possible. (Mark, Rick - and further thoughts??)
5.4
Flight Cross Sections
5.4.1
Nominal Flight Plans
This section describes the nominal flight strategies anticipated for one or more aircraft in order to address
the various CASES-99 scientific goals. Details relevant to specific tracks will await initial pilot test flights.
Altitudes will depend on measurement needs and minimum altitude limits based on FAA limits (if any) and pilot
flight segment tests.
5.4.1.1 Vertical Profiling
It will be useful in most instances to use aircraft profiling at the beginning and the end of each flight to
define the environmental profiles for intercomparison among aircraft, the kite, balloons, and ground-based
instrumentation. This will serve to define the altitudes of greatest interest for the focused flight segments discussed
below. Profiling will ideally extend from the lowest allowed altitudes to altitudes above the NBL. We do not
anticipate that profiling will be continuous; however, additional profiling during a mission may be desired to define
evolving NBL structure.
5.4.1.2 Constant Altitude Surveys
These flight segments are intended to define NBL heterogeneity, the horizontal structure of 2D wave and
instability processes, and the spatial scales, intermittency, intensities, and statistics of turbulence mixing events.
Segment lengths will vary, depending on the larger scales present in the flow. But nominal lengths of ~ 10 - 30 km
will likely be sufficient for platform stability and statistics, while focussing on the NBL dynamics around the CF.
Segments are expected to be either along or normal to the large-scale flow, based on sampling needs. Such surveys
may also involve more than one aircraft, at different altitudes and on parallel or perpendicular segments. Multiple
segments along the same track may also be employed to define the temporal evolution of the flow and accumulate
improved statistics on NBL dynamics. For lower-altitude flights, it will be necessary for the pilots to have
familiarity with the terrain and any potential obstacles for the longest anticipated flight segment in advance
of any measurement sequence.
5.4.1.3 Vertically-Stacked Segments
These flight segments represent a broadening of the scope of the NBL dynamics survey relative to the
constant altitude surveys discussed above. The intent here is to fly a sequence of horizontal segments stacked in the
vertical with a spacing (which may or may not be uniform) designed to provide sensitivity to the varying dynamics
of the NBL with background environment. Examples where such stacked segments might be employed include 1) a
deep gravity wave structure contributing to instability and turbulence at multiple levels, 2) a deep or complex shear
capping the NBL and contributing shear instability and turbulence over a significant depth, and 3) the excitation
of inertia-gravity wave activity by geostrophic adjustment as the NBL evolves. As above, these stacked segments
are anticipated to be either along or normal to the dominant wind direction, with segments in close proximity to the
60-m tower specified to occur at locations where aircraft wakes will have a minimal impact on kite, tower, and other
ground-based measurement systems.
5.4.1.4 Horizontally-Spaced Segments
Sequences of horizontal flight segments may also be desired to address the temporal evolution and spatial
structure of specific airmasses exibiting interesting dynamics. As above, these may be either aligned along
or across the dominant wind direction. In most cases, however, we envision that the normal mode would be
successive flights across the wind, with the spacing dictated by wind speed and flight segment length. We also
anticipate that flight segments will be shorter in this sampling mode in order to provide the best possible temporal
resolution of the sampled airmasses.
5.4.1.5 Tower and Kite Fly-bys
Tower and kite fly-bys will be desired for all aircraft in order to intercompare aircraft, tower, and kite
measurements of turbulence structures and statistics. These flights (at 200 ft or 60 m) will need to be a close to
the tower as possible within the constraints of safety. We expect the nominal distance to be 1/2 mile, preferably
downstream of the tower, but upstream if that is a preferred flight track by the pilots. A similar spacing will be
required from the kite, but this will rely on precise knowledge of where the kite and tether are located as well as
lights to define the kite position clearly.
(Below depend on decisions and instrument complements yet to be determined.)
5.4.2
Ferries from Jabara to CF
5.4.3
Data Assurance Strategies
5.4.3.1 Aircraft Self-Calibration Maneuvers (refer to specific mans.?)
5.4.3.2 Aircraft-Aircraft Intercomparisons
5.4.3.3 Comparisons with other instruments
5.5
Flight Operations Procedures
5.5.1
Flight Planning Time Line
5.5.1.1 Decision Sequence (see table ??)
5.5.1.2 Flight Operations Sequence
Take-off - 3 hrs.
Take-off - 1 1/2 hrs.
5.5.2
In-Flight Operations Decisions
5.5.3
Debriefing (if so, where??)
5.5.4
Post-Flight Quick Look Data Processing
5.6
Post-Experiment Processing and Quality Control
5.6.1
Output Format
5.6.2
Data Availability for Quick Look
5.6.3
Facility Scientific Interests
6. Data Management and Field Catalogue
6.1
Data Management
The Joint Office for Science Support (JOSS) proposes to have primary responsibility for the implementation of the
data management approach described in this section. The final objective is a high quality data archive that has easy
and timely access by a large community of investigators. This section details the methods JOSS will use as well as
necessary guidelines for the PIs to follow in order that this objective may be met. The PI guidelines will include data
format conventions, dataset documentation and submission requirements, while the JOSS responsibilities will
include data archival, the provision of a field catalog and collection of supplemental datasets for CASES-99.
6.2
Data Protocols
The following data protocols are meant as a guide for all CASES-99 investigators with regard to the processing,
quality control, dissemination and sharing of data with other CASES-99 participants and cooperative projects. This
proposed protocol is more specific than that contained in the Overview and Implementation Plan of CASES. This
specific protocol is responsive to the CASES-99 science team needs while encouraging free data access and
availability in the long run. The objective of the protocol is to facilitate the timely submission and exchange high
quality data in an open fashion to all interested investigators.
1.
All CASES-99 Science Team (CST) members must agree to submit data within one year of the end of the
field program [October 2000] to the appropriate archive center to facilitate longer term archival and
distribution (see item 9 below).
2.
Each investigator’s data is considered proprietary until the data appear in publication or are published/released
via the CASES-99 archives to the science community. The CASES archives will be released to the larger
science community in October 2000.
3.
The CST members may release data to whomever they wish. They may not release data of other CASES-99
investigators without consent. The direct exchange of data among investigators is encouraged.
4.
All CASES-99 datasets will be considered in the public domain after October 2000. This will enhance free
and open access to the data. This DOES NOT remove responsibility from the sponsoring investigator of a
given study to solicit the help of the data provider early in the investigation and offer co-authorship when
significant intellectual contributions are made to the resulting publication.
5.
Datasets submitted to the archive centers must contain sufficient documentation so that users understand
the characteristics and attributes of the data and the chosen format. This includes information concerning
the quality of the data and may require suitable caveats regarding the data be included in any publication using
that data.
6.
An investigator whose proprietary data are to be used in an investigation has the right to be included among the
authors of any resulting publication but must work with the authors to determine such need. (There may need
to be date limits here).
7.
CST members publishing CASES-99 results must always give appropriate acknowledgement and citation of
those who collected and provided the data, regardless of contribution to the publication.
8.
Any new or derived datasets resulting from collaborative investigations among CST members should be
submitted to the CASES-99 archive center or be made available via links described in item 9 below.
9.
CASES-99 will use a distributed archive strategy. Investigators should submit their data to an archive (item
1) but in special cases may keep their own data collected as part of CASES-99 so long as they establish
appropriate links to this data through the CASES-99 web page (or archive center).
6.3 Data Management Responsibilities
The UCAR/Joint Office for Science Support has collaborated with the CASES-99 Science Team and
together they have determined that the following tasks are absolutely essential to providing an acceptable level of
data management support for CASES-99.
1. Suggest standardized format(s) and guidelines for dataset documentation, status and summary reporting and other
important data management procedures as necessary to assure complete documentation of project activities.
2.
Provision of an Data Questionnaire to collect information from project Pis regarding their needs for real-time
data support in the field as well as information on what datasets they will be providing to the archive both
during and after the field season.
3.
Collection of supplemental datasets to assist in operations planning and research after the field season. The
actual data collection period will start 7-10 days prior to the beginning of the project to assure reliability of the
data source and end 3-5 days after the end of the project. Some of this information will be available in real-time
and all will be accessible via CODIAC after the end of the field season. With a few exceptions, these data will
be collected within a latitude-longitude box that defines a CASES-99 domain. The boundaries of this box are
30N-45N and 88W-106W. For a detailed list of these datasets please refer to section 6.5.5.
4. Archival and distribution of project datasets (and metadata) using the JOSS Data Management System
(CODIAC). All data collected by JOSS along with other research datasets provided by Pis and/or facilities will be
staged to CODIAC and made available via the JOSS data management system. CASES-99 data will be accessible by
date, station or location depending on the source and format of the data received. JOSS will place data onto the data
management system as it is received from the investigators. JOSS will continue to work with the project scientists to
develop common dataset requirements (e.g. date/time stamps, documentation, format) that will simplify access and
encourage exchange among the participants and the larger scientific community. JOSS will work with the
investigators to assure all data are documented appropriately and the latest version of a given dataset is available as
quickly as possible.
6.4
CASES-99 Data Management Strategy
It is important that the CASES-99 data management strategy be responsive to the needs of the investigators
assuring data are accurate, accessible, well documented and disseminated in a timely fashion.
6.4.1
Investigator requirements
The first step in organizing CASES-99 data management support is to understand what data are
anticipated from the various components of the program. JOSS will work with the CASES-99 science team to
develop and disseminate a questionnaire for participants that solicits this information from an individual investigator
perspective.
It has also been assumed that tasks associated with CASES-99 data acquisition (e.g. in-field record
keeping, backing up field data, data documentation [for catalog purposes], provision of data to data processing
locations, processing of raw data into geophysical parameters and initial dataset quality control) will be performed
by the participating investigators. The investigators will be requested to document datasets in accordance with
JOSS and CASES-99 documentation guidelines so that they could be included in the CASES-99 field catalog in as
automated a fashion as possible.
6.4.2
Data Format Convention
It is recognized that initial field datasets produced by investigators' instrumentation may be in a variety of
formats and completeness (World Meteorological Organization (WMO) level I and IIA data). It is important that
processed data end up in a common format whenever possible or practical, accessible by all CASES-99 investigators
and eventually the larger scientific community. Establishing a standard format or at least standard time and space
documentation is quite important in the CASES-99 scenario where it is important to compare different instruments
in the same space/time environment. The CASES-99 Science Team has agreed that all datasets should be
documented in UTC time as determined by GPS instruments(YYYYMMDDHHMMSS) (YYYY=year,
MM=month, DD=day, HH=UTC hour, MM=Minute and SS= seconds) . To faciltate the synchronization of all
instruments, periodic time hacks will occur throughout the project.
The CASES-99 PIs have agreed to provide data to the archive in either ASCII or netCDF format. Should a
PI provide data in a format other than these two, they must provide software to convert the data from their format to
one of these.
6.4.3 CASES-99 Dataset Documentation
The importance of providing complete and separate documentation (A readme file) with every CASES-99 dataset,
regardless of format, cannot be over emphasized. It is critical for the long term viability of the comprehensive data
base and the easiest way to explain to everyone who might use a dataset important details that might be forgotten in
years to come. There are several important components to a complete documentation file that should accompany a
given dataset. They include;







Author and/or source of the data
Complete description of the sensors used in the data collection
Complete description of any derived parameters contained in the dataset.
Specific definition of the sample time period (hourly, continuous, etc.) for each variable contained in the
dataset.
Specify the units for each measured or derived parameter.
Document the version number
Minimize the reference to specific dataset file names. They may be modified by the relational database system
and file transfer protocol procedures.
6.4.4
Field Catalog
Depending on funding from NSF, a field catalog could be functional during the CASES-99 field project
and would be maintained as necessary to support investigator needs. The catalog would be implemented using a
World Wide Web (WWW) interface. Common Web browsers, including Netscape and Internet Explorer, with
forms and graphics capabilities would be capable of accessing the catalog. The objective is to have limited data
available in near real-time for monitoring instrument performance, system intercomparisons, evaluating
completeness of the collected datasets and preliminary analysis. This would become the "living archive" of
operational and preliminary research datasets for initial scientific analysis.
The field catalog, will permit on-line data entry (data collection details, metadata, field summary notes,
certain operational and research data etc.), data browsing (listings, images) and information distribution to other
locations worldwide. Daily operations summaries will be prepared that contain as much information about
operations (major instrument systems status and sampling times, satellite overpasses, aircraft flight times and tracks,
etc.) as desired by the investigators. It is also possible for the project scientists to contribute graphics, i.e. plots in
GIF or Postscript format for retention in the catalog. These plots will then be accessible by all participants via
Internet. It will be possible to update the status of data collection and instrumentation on a daily basis or more often
depending on the platforms.
6.4.5 Supplemental Data Collection
Table 1 lists the datasets which JOSS will be collecting during the CASES-99 field project.
Table 1. Supplemental Dataset Collection for CASES-99
Dataset
Data Resolution
Data Source
Available in Real Time?
Composite Rawinsonde
Data - Entire USA plus
field operations sites
All soundings launched
between 12/1/97 1/26/97
6 sec resolution
JOSS
NCAR/SSSF
Data: No
Gifs: Yes from selected
sites near the CASES-99
central site
NOAA Profiler Data
Winds and Surface Data
Time: 6 min and 1hr
NCDC
Surface Data from NWS
METAR Stations
Hourlies and specials
from stations in the
midwest
JOSS - ingest
Data: No
Gifs: Yes from selected
sites
Gifs only
Surface data from
selected regional and
state networks such as
High Plains Climate
Network (HPCN) and
ARM/CART
Spatial: Variable
Time: Variable 1 min hourly
JOSS
No
Table 1. Supplemental Dataset Collection for CASES-99
Dataset
Data Resolution
Data Source
Available in Real Time?
ASOS/AWOS
Spatial: KS, OK
Time: 5 min, 20 min
JOSS - ingest
No
NEXRAD level II
Archive
Radars: ICT, VNX
Time: All data during
IOP events
NCDC
No
Selected NIDS products
Products: Regional
composites, selected
products from ICT
(Wichita) and VNX
(Vance AFB) radars.
JOSS - ingest
Selected Gifs only
GOES-8 Regional VIS
Spatial: 1 km
Time: 30 min
JOSS
Gifs only
GOES-8 Regional IR
Spatial: 4 km
JOSS
Gifs only
GOES-8 Regional WV
Spatial: 8 km
JOSS
Gifs only
Polar Orbiter Imagery
6 channels
LAC data retrieved from
ground station in Boulder
JOSS
Selected Gifs only
Operational Model Grids
3-hourly RUC,
12-hourly ETA, AVN,
NOGAPS
JOSS – ingest
Data: Yes
Gifs: Yes
6.5
Data Processing after the Field Season
It is important that all CASES-99 participants concentrate on post field season data processing activities to
assure timely availability of datasets to all participating investigators as summarized in section 6.2. Many of these
preliminary datasets along with provided operational data should be accessible via CODIAC as soon as possible
after they are received.
These "preliminary" data can be in "native" resolution and format, that is, in the format and resolution the
investigators produce from their initial data processing. It is hoped that most preliminary research and operational
datasets will become available within 12 months of the end of the field observing program. Following the protocols
by the CASES-99 science team all data will have open access by the CASES-99 investigators. final processed
dataset (e.g. final format, fully quality controlled, etc.) will replace preliminary data only when directed by the
contributing scientists.
6.5.1
Data Access After the Field Season
Following the field season the JOSS data management system will be populated with any data
provided by the investigators. Data will be searchable by file name and/or data type. The investigators will
have complete responsibility for the processing and delivery of their data and documentation to JOSS
within 12 months of the conclusion of the field project. As data are received they will be promptly staged
and made available to all CASES-99 participants. It is not necessary that all CASES-99 data be housed at
JOSS. Appropriate WWW links can be established so that access is possible at PI home institutions or other
data centers. The PIs will provide these links as required.
Information from the field catalog, if implemented, (data collection procedures, instrumentation
attributes, graphical products, etc.) during the field season will also be accessible. JOSS would intend to
keep the catalog available for several years following the end of the field phase as a ready summary of
observations and operations. Links to other data centers or archives will be in place as necessary so that
users can have access to all CASES-99 specific data from a single entry point. It will be possible to make
data requests, via World Wide Web (WWW)/Netscape or other interface, and download files via ftp from
the catalog or other data center.
6.5.2
Data Archival and Long-term Access
JOSS will be the archive center for any CASES-99. The CODIAC system will be used to allow
access, perusal and distribution using WWW/Mosaic interface, forms and browse tools. PIs may wish to
take on archive responsibilities for certain datasets (i.e. model output, aircraft data, etc.) In that case they
will need to coordinate access procedures (specifically a URL link to their archive site) with JOSS.
7. Project Safety
All participants in CASES-99 should be fully knowlegeable about safety issues that have been established
by the lease arrangements to use the field site, and by the requirements that have been imposed by the
Argonne National Laboratory at the APO.
Safety issues associated with each aircraft are provided by the organizations that support these facilities.
The responsible individual from each organization will provide the necessary safety instruction to airborne
scientists, when necessary.
7.1 Site Safety
Fire and damage to the land and cattle are the principal concerns of the landowners.
Smoking is not permitted on any site. Determine where it is possible to smoke without the possibility of a
fire hazzard before lighting up.
Cars and trucks may only drive on to the site where there is either a preexisting road or a gravel road has
been built for use by CASES-99 personnel. Exceptions may be established for limited use.
IF POSSIBLE, WALK OR USE A BIKE TO VISIT A FACILITY.
All facilities should be protected by cattle wires where cattle are expected to be grazing: sites owned by
Eddie Smith, A. and D.E. Wedman and Beth Smith.
7.2 Argonne National Laboratory APO and ABLE sites
(1) Before CASES-99 participants arrive to use ABLE facilities, they must complete a safety orientation
located at the ABLE web site. (see section 2.1.1)
(a) go to http://www.atmos.anl.gov/ABLE
(b) Scroll down to and click on: "ABLE Safety Documentation"
(c) Click on and read "ABLE Safety Orientation Document"
(d) After you have completed studying this document, click on and complete
the "ABLE Safety Orientation Sign-off sheet", then click "Submit Query".
(2) OTHER ITEMS Not included in ABLE Safety Orientation but which
nevertheless apply:
(a) Work Gloves
Work gloves are required when doing any work where hand injury is possible.
(b) Electrical Extension Cords
If electrical extension cords are to be used, they shall be the three-wire type and have a hard or extra hard
usage rating. They shall be in good condition and not compromised in any way. They shall not be
connected in series, spliced, or taped. The Site Scientist will inspect all extension cords coming to the
ABLE sites.
(c) Aluminum and Metal Ladders
Because of the conductivity of aluminum and other metals, no aluminum or metal ladders are allowed onsite. Ladders brought to the site must be in good working condition.
ABLE Project Office
13645 SW Haverhill Road
Augusta, KS 67010
Fax (316) 775-1291
e-mail jklazura@anl.gov
Web Site http://www.atmos.anl.gov/ABLE
7.3 Emergency Contact Information
The site area is served by 911.
Nonemergency:316-259-4500
Ambulence (Butler County):316-775-6081
Sheriff (Butler County)1-800-794-0190 or 316-321-1650
Fire. The fire department for the site is the Butler County Fire Department
#9, located in Leon. Call 911.
Highway Patrol (Wichita):316-744-0451 or cell *47
Kansas State Turnpike Authority:cell *KTA
Hospitals:Augusta Medical Complex, 316-775-5421
Susan B. Allen Memorial in ElDorado, 316-321-3300
7.4 Locations
Ambulence:2101 Dearborn, Augusta
Fire Department:111 East 6th Avenue, Augusta
Storm Shelters:Police Department, 111 East 6th Avenue,
Augusta East Mobile Home Park, East 12th Street and So. Hooper
Augusta Mobile Home Court, 310 West 7th Avenue
Sheriff:205 West Central, ElDorado
Susan B. Allen Hospital:720 West Central, El Dorado
7.5 Los Alamos National Laboratory Lidar Safety
A detailed write up on the safety issues that everyone needs to know regarding the LANL lidar during
CASES-99 operations. Using the LAZAN (industry standard) safety program for laser operations,
these are the following specs for the lidar:
Pulse energy
Pulse length
Pulse rate
Beam Shape
Beam Divergence
Nominal Hazard Zone
UV (248 nm)
250 mJ
2E-08 s
200 Hz
50 X 100 mm
3 mrad
3.2 km
Green (532 nm)
100 mJ
2E-08 s
50 Hz
25 X 25 mm
3 mrad
0.1 km
Basically, this says that the system will be eye safe at 3.2 km from the lidar. No people, aircraft or vehicles
are to be within 3.2 km of the instrument. As the lidar beam is 3 m off the ground, and the lidar will not
intersect with the ground, normal operations between the lidar and tower will not be affected. HOWEVER,
no one will be allowed on the lidar pallet unless authorized personnel are present.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Experimental Atmospheric and Climate Physics
MS C300
Los Alamos, NM 87545
(505) 665 6501 voice
(505) 667 7460 fax