Comparing RAOB to NUCAPS and AllSky Layer Precipitable Water

Davenport launched an 18Z balloon, which gave me the opportunity to compare the RAOB with a NUCAPS sounding (first and second images below, respectively). Initially, I attempted to modify the sounding in NUCAPS to try to bring it closer to the observed values, but after several minutes and attempts at doing that, I realized that I'd have to do multiple levels of modifications before it came anywhere close to the observed sounding. As great as it is to have the ability to modify the NUCAPS sounding, my initial thoughts are that I'm not sure how feasible it would be to do this in a much quicker-paced operational setting. If I'm sitting in the mesoanalyst seat during a severe weather event, I'd need to be able to analyze the available data much faster than doing a more detailed modification would allow.

I was also able to do a PWAT comparison between these two soundings and the AllSky Layered Precip product. The NUCAPS and RAOB are very close together in values, whereas since the AllSky product (last image below) is currently utilizing the GFS to fill in the data in the DVN area, it's noticeably higher (RAOB: 1.0"; NUCAPS: 1.1"; AllSky: 1.3"). I am very happy to be able to underlay the data type for the LAP products, since this is crucial for me to be able to see where the data is coming from and how to correctly assess and apply the right bias adjustments, as necessary.
As for the AllSky Layered Precip product, in general, this is very helpful to be able to identify potential atmospheric rivers and quickly diagnose PWAT trends with a decent degree of confidence, when again combined with the knowledge of what data is being used to compute the output.

~Gritty