Mobile Mesonet Data

Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
884
Location
New Mexico
Hi all,

I'm presently taking a new fluid dynamics class, and I'm starting to tinker with some new modeling ideas different from some other simulations I've tried (like my density current in past threads). While I just started toying with some ideas in my head. I started to wonder, is there any Mobile Mesonet Data available? I did some basic figuring, and at a minimum I probably need data with 6-7 stations running at the same time (I know a bit much) to do what I'm thinking(wind data would probably suffice for now). I would be interested to discuss further with anyone who may have access to this type of data. I wouldn't be completely surprised if someone has gone the route I'm thinking with my simulations, however it may be a unique modeling direction at these scales. However, it may not work at the storm size scale, but I figure asking around couldn't hurt. Again the idea is just in its infancy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The idea has merit, it's always a good idea to explore ideas and theories, even if they have been done before. If nothing else, it helps you grow as a person and as a scientist/researcher. As for the mobile mesonet data, that's a difficult question to answer. The only two field projects that used even remotely close to that number of Mobile Mesonets are VORTEX and VORTEX 2. There have been a number of field projects that used MM's, but either not near 6-7 or not in severe weather situations. VORTEX 1 had close to a dozen I think, but the data is quite dated. The VORTEX 2 project has a total of 7 MM's, but I am not sure if the data is available to the public yet or not. If you are serious about using the data, I can ask a few people for you as to if and where you can obtain some of the data. If you don't need data for just severe weather, say data on a dryline in clear air, that opens up the number of projects you could pull from. Just let me know.

One thing to keep in mind however, is that there is quite a bit of post-processing that must be done to the data to ensure quality. There are a number of things that one needs to pay attention to before using the data, it's never a good idea to blindly trust that the data is "good" or "accurate."

I will also point out that I am doing this of my own accord and not in any relation to OU, NOAA, or NSSL. Obvious I know, but a disclaimer I feel I need to make.
 
Here is an image of the model I'm working on, that I was thinking might be interesting to see if I could use in conjunction with the data. It is very computationally efficient at these scales, compared to other techniques I know.

map_of_vals3.jpg

link to larger picture http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mRNBTH2bIRg/S1OFs39idMI/AAAAAAAAAdc/EvAjt576cA4/s1600-h/map_of_vals3.jpg

The image is vortex paths, red is oppositely rotating from the blue. You can see that there is vortex pairing occurring. I hope to develop this much more, while keeping it non-intensive computationally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought Vortex 2 had more? I mean CSWR had at least 4 and I know there were way more than three NOAA vans with Youngs twirling away on top of them.

This is true Ryan, but I am only considering the NSSL vans (of which there are 7) as those are the ones I am most familiar with and have changed very little over the years, making the data fairly consistent. Everyone has their own opinion on this, but if I were doing any sort of modeling or otherwise using mobile surface observations for science, I would want all of the vehicles to be exactly the same. The same instruments in the same location on the same type of vehicle. This way, there is minimal chance of there being any bias or error between the vehicles due to any of those differences. The CSWR probes were not all the same car and had various instruments/shields scattered across the probes.

Just my personal opinion.
 
Back
Top