I suggest a flaw in analysis which is the apparent segmentation of the
Upper Air profile, in the Arctic, the real action is happening between 1000 and 650 mb, segmenting upper air levels 850,700, and 500 mb reduces resolution and misses some real important air volumes at higher pressures, where anything can happen between 1000 and 850, 850 and 750 mb etc... Raobcore profile looks a little unrealistic, and it is likely that the models are more correct for the lower troposphere than Raobco
Air profile, in the Arctic, the real action is happening between 1000 and 650 mb, segmenting
upper air levels 850,700, and 500 mb reduces resolution and misses some real important air volumes at higher pressures, where anything can happen between 1000 and 850, 850 and 750 mb etc... Raobcore profile looks a little unrealistic, and it is likely that the models are more correct for the lower troposphere than Raobco
air levels 850,700, and 500 mb reduces resolution and misses some real important
air volumes at higher pressures, where anything can happen between 1000 and 850, 850 and 750 mb etc... Raobcore profile looks a little unrealistic, and it is likely that the models are more correct for the lower troposphere than Raobco
air volumes at higher pressures, where anything can happen between 1000 and 850, 850 and 750 mb etc... Raobcore
profile looks a little unrealistic, and it is likely that the models are more correct for the lower troposphere than Raobcore.
This reduction in diurnal coverage is compounded by the recent NOAA decision to suspend taking operational geosynchronous
upper -
air temperature and water vapor
profile measurements after the current GOES - N / O / P series until approximately 2025.