the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessment of humidity ground checks for GRUAN-compliant automatic radiosonde operations
Abstract. Automated Radiosonde Launchers (ARLs) are increasingly adopted for upper-air observations as they offer major operational advantages compared to manual launches, but they introduce new challenges for maintaining reference-quality humidity measurements within the GCOS Reference Upper-Air Network (GRUAN). In particular, the applicability of the pre-launch Standard Humidity Chamber (SHC) test, routinely used for manual radiosonde launches, has not been systematically assessed for radiosondes stored inside ARLs prior to launch.
This study investigates how residence time inside ARLs affects radiosonde humidity sensor performance and the adequacy of SHC tests for automated GRUAN operations. A coordinated experiment was conducted at six sites using three radiosonde models (Vaisala RS41, Meisei IMS-100, and MeteoModem M10) and three ARL systems (Vaisala AS15, Meisei ARS, and MeteoModem Robotsonde). Radiosondes were tested in an SHC prior to storage and again after residence times of 7 and 14 days. Relative humidity biases at saturation (RH = 100 %) were analyzed using aggregated statistics, including a paired RH bias difference—i.e., the change in bias between pre-storage and post-storage measurements, to quantify temporal drift. A non-parametric bootstrap resampling analysis was first applied to assess the robustness and confidence intervals of the paired RH bias difference estimates. Statistical significance of the paired RH bias difference distributions was subsequently evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A normalized storage-effect metric, combining the systematic drift and variability of the paired RH bias differences, was compared with the GRUAN humidity uncertainty contribution associated with ground preparation.
Results indicate that radiosonde humidity performance remains stable for residence times up to 14 days under the tested storage conditions, particularly for the RS41–AS15 configuration, where only small negative drifts were observed (approximately ~ −0.1 % RH week-1). In contrast, the IMS-100–ARS configuration exhibited a pronounced increase in drift with storage time (approximately ~ −0.8 % RH week-1), which was amplified under high-humidity and temperature seasonal conditions, while the M10–Robotsonde configuration showed a reversed drift with partial bias reduction during storage (~ +0.12 % RH week-1). These findings demonstrate that radiosonde behavior during storage strongly depends on the combined radiosonde–ARL system.
Based on the experimental and statistical evidence, an operational upper limit of 14 days for radiosonde storage inside ARLs is recommended for GRUAN-compliant operations, with residence times up to 7 days providing optimal reliability. The study confirms the feasibility of implementing SHC tests for ARL operations while highlighting the need for manufacturer- and site-specific procedures to ensure long-term traceability and consistency of reference humidity measurements. The results demonstrate that residence time inside ARLs constitutes a system-dependent source of uncertainty, warranting explicit inclusion as an additional component in the GRUAN Data Product (GDP) humidity uncertainty budget.
- Preprint
(713 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3215', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Oct 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 124 | 63 | 25 | 212 | 28 | 22 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 63
- XML: 25
- Total: 212
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review of Romanens et al, " Assessment of humidity ground checks for GRUAN-compliant automatic radiosonde operations".
General comments
The submitted manuscript describes a careful study carried out to investigate the effects of storage time in automated radiosonde launchers on radiosonde humidity measurements, under the auspices of GRUAN, the GCOS Reference Upper Air Network. This is an important question for GRUAN because the number of manual launch sites might decrease significantly in the coming years. There are also some small additional sub-components of the study including the effects of repeated ground checks, and of realistic contaminants.
The general subject, making careful long term measurements of the basic properties of the atmosphere, such as humidity profiles, is of course, fundamental to atmospheric science.
The study has been carefully implemented and is well described and reported.
I recommend publication in AMT. I only have a small number of comments which are all quite minor.
Particularly in the introduction, I found the very heavy use of acronyms and abbreviations made the writing not very reader-friendly. Some sentences had up to four different acronyms in quick succession. Some of them didn't seem especially useful to me.
I would also suggest the study might be limited by the fact that the participating stations were all situated in relatively temperate locations in the world. This is seen in table 2 where the climate control has little trouble at most sites keeping the conditions within a mild range all year. This might not be the case in more extreme locations, such as polar, desert or an equatorial island with very high humidity. I would be interested if the authors have any comment to make on that point?
Specific comments
Line 46 Is ensuring that automation doesn't compromise the integrity of climate datasets really a "key role" of GRUAN?
Line 57 There seems to be some inconsistency here because all the sites except for Hong Kong are listed as agency-site name-country?
Lines 80-84 For this paragraph, you should give the actual names of the stations rather than the three letter codes, to be more reader friendly.
Lines 80-84 They are all essentially mid-latitude sites though. The west to east coverage doesn't necessarily imply different conditions at all. It would be much more relevant to give the climate classification of each site.
Lines 80-84 As I mentioned earlier, do the authors think these results would be the same if carried out in a more extreme environment?
Table 1
I suggest dividing table 1 into two separate tables, to improve the readability. At the moment it is too compressed with too many abbreviations. The site names should be listed in full as well as their three letter codes. The column headings shouldn't be abbreviated (eg "ARL", "CC" etc). The abbreviations "CC", 'A/C", "AD" and "H" aren't explained in the caption and the reader has to refer to the text.
Line 98 (Table 1) "GPS" is not the correct term here. You should list the longitude and latitude as distinct columns (with labels "Longitude" and "Latitude".)
Line 116 You list both "weather forecasting" and "numerical weather prediction" so I assume you are referring to human forecasters in the first case? For human use, how accurate do the humidity values need to be?
Lines 154-157 Would the study have benefitted from being carried out over a longer time period at the other sites as well?
Line 180 "Based on the information provided in Table 1" makes it sound as if the authors have received the information from elsewhere and don't completely trust it. (Do you just mean "As shown in Table 1"?)
Lines 191-192 This sentence doesn't quite ready properly – "the fact that … represents an unbalanced contribution "
Line 197 Should "Quality Controlled" be "Quality control"?
Figure 2 (Left) – The blue line seems to be heavily affected by the first point, without which the gradient would be fairly similar to the yellow line.
Figure 2 What is the explanation for the offset? I was surprised by it.
Lines 346-348 This is the first time the reader has heard about this effect, which seems important. It would be better to discuss it earlier on when the SHC is being introduced. It must limit the ability of the SHC to be a reference to within more than 1-2 %.
Technical comments.
Line 6 Delete apostrophe after sensor
Line 137 Delete repeated "Vaisala"