Evaluation of Barnes' Method and Kriging for Estimating the Low Level Wind Field

This thesis evaluates two different methods of estimating a three dimensional wind field based upon a limited number of irregularly-spaced observations. This work was performed for the 45th Weather Squadron to determine how well the two methods worked and their potential for use in a visualization program. The two methods evaluated were Barnes' method and a method called Kriging, which is commonly used in geostatistics. Both of these estimation techniques were implemented and then evaluated to determine how accurate the estimates were that they created. The methods' accuracies were determined by withholding an observation from the observed wind field data set, performing the estimation, and then comparing the estimated value at the point of the withheld observation with the actual value withheld. These performance results were compared to determine which method produced a more accurate estimated wind field. Barnes' method proved to be the less complicated to implement, but Kriging provided a more accurate estimate. Both of the methods had a significant amount of estimation error associated with them. This large error casts serious doubt on their abilities to produce an accurate enough estimation to be useful in analyzing the low-level wind field.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.