Alternate format for Vertical Temp Profile Data

[Patrad Fischroy]

I don't know if any of the observatory folks read this, but has anyone considered plotting the vertical temperatures as a bar or line graph? It wold show inversions pretty clearly that way.

[Brad]

I don't know if any of the observatory folks read this, but has anyone considered plotting the vertical temperatures as a bar or line graph? It wold show inversions pretty clearly that way.

This is an interesting idea. The http://www.mountwashington.org/weather/conditions.php page has the temperatures at the multiple locations. And http://www.mountwashington.org/weather/arvtp/ shows it in a different manner. Having this shown as bar charts would be a good way of showing the data.

Last summer the Obs were working on extending the network to be able to gather weather readings from multiple hut locations also. So, this data will be more readily available. I will check with Obs folks offline on the bar chart display idea.

[nevis_highwire]

It should be put into some sort of modified skew-t. That is a type of graph meteorologists use to look at vertical temperatures profile. It needs to be public friendly, that's why I call it a modified skew-t.

[Patrad Fischroy]

I was thinking of something as simple as this. From Data at 1:31 PM Friday 29 Sept06

[Brad]

If there are not too many reading locations, one could use the following approach

[Patrad Fischroy]

My thoughts exactly. The Temp axis doesn't need to be at the origin and it could sit alongside the crrent graphic of the auto road. So what say observatory? Would this sort of graphic illustrate the temp vs. elev more clearly? And more so would it point out the inversions better?

[Torden]

As far as inversions go, I thought I heard an Observer say once that you could not determine the inversions based on temperature alone. While it is interesting to note where temperatures cross, I think you need a second variable (pressure?) to note where a true inversion lies.

[nevis_highwire]

As far as inversions go, I thought I heard an Observer say once that you could not determine the inversions based on temperature alone. While it is interesting to note where temperatures cross, I think you need a second variable (pressure?) to note where a true inversion lies.

No, its called a temperature inversion for one reason. The temperature is inverted. You only need temperature. Please do find that observer comment, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that.