I I
Using this concept of definition, I compared my nephanalysis with those presented by the authors and the probability-of-cloudiness charts (diagnostic charts). The results are quite interesting. On page 182, the authors note a “discrepancy ” between the diagnosed and the observed clouds south of Icel...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.395.2597 http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/095/mwr-095-09-0646.pdf |
| Summary: | Using this concept of definition, I compared my nephanalysis with those presented by the authors and the probability-of-cloudiness charts (diagnostic charts). The results are quite interesting. On page 182, the authors note a “discrepancy ” between the diagnosed and the observed clouds south of Iceland on 1500 GMT February 2 (fig. lob in their paper). They are quite correct in rejecting this cloud layer since they observed only stratocumulus on the videograph. Had they initially rejected these clouds, which form behind the trough as a result of the flow of cold air over warm water, this discrepancy would not have occurred at all. These stratocumulus, stratus, or cumulus clouds are easily identified on the satellite cloud pictures. Their rejection in the nephanalysis of significant clouds would help |
|---|