From dryfoos at us.ibm.com Fri Nov 19 16:47:37 2004 From: dryfoos at us.ibm.com (Robert Dryfoos) Date: Fri Nov 19 16:47:54 2004 Subject: [wxqc] weather quality Message-ID: I am curious about the weather quality checks. The reports I keep receiving do not seem to factor in the effects of Lake George on my local conditions. I have two weather stations within a couple of hundred feet of each other and they record very similar readings most of the time. I set it up that way because I was hoping to detect difference between being on the lake (my reporting station is on the roof of my boathouse, about 25 feet above and 25 feet out into the lake. The other unit sits on the roof of my home. While usually very close I have recorded temperature differences as large as 9 degrees though they usually are within 1 degree of each other. Since the two stations seem to validate the data I am transmitting, why are there errors ?? Robert Dryfoos, TPF STSM IBM Corporation, 2455 South Rd. - P922, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 T/L 293-5960 or 845-433-5960, FAX 914-432-9647 dryfoos@us.ibm.com TPF Systems, S/390 Software Development From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Mon Nov 22 16:29:23 2004 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Mon Nov 22 16:29:37 2004 Subject: [wxqc] weather quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert, I looked at the QC statistics for your station and they don't seem that bad to me. Our QC isn't perfect, of course, and it's quite possible that there are some microscale meteorological changes that you detect that aren't detected at the 8 surrounding stations that are used in the spatial consistency check that generates the errors. The QC failure rates found in the text QC messages available from either Russ Chadwick's website or our website (http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_messages.html) are meant to be used statistically. We only report stations that have failed the QC 25% of the time or more during the duration covered by the daily/weekly/monthly reports found on our website -- if you show up here on a regular basis then you may have a problem, if not (and you don't), don't worry about it. The time series graphs that Philip produces showing the reported and analyzed values can be useful for finding biases that can be corrected by an offset added to your data. From briefly glancing at the time series plots for your station, I don't think that's an issue. This all having been said, there is one thing you can doublecheck. The station elevation is very important in the QC of temperature and pressure data. The station table we have shows your station as having an elevation of 107 meters. I interpolated from a 30" digital terrain file to your site and got 151.208 meters. Since 30" provides 1-km resolution, your measurement is probably more reliable, but if you have the ability to use a GPS to measure your elevation (and lat/lon), it might be a good idea to doublecheck. Thanks, Mike Barth Forecast Systems Laboratory On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Robert Dryfoos wrote: > I am curious about the weather quality checks. > > The reports I keep receiving do not seem to factor in the effects of Lake > George on my local conditions. I have two weather stations within a couple > of hundred feet of each other and they record very similar readings most of > the time. I set it up that way because I was hoping to detect difference > between being on the lake (my reporting station is on the roof of my > boathouse, about 25 feet above and 25 feet out into the lake. The other > unit sits on the roof of my home. > > While usually very close I have recorded temperature differences as large > as 9 degrees though they usually are within 1 degree of each other. > > Since the two stations seem to validate the data I am transmitting, why are > there errors ?? > > Robert Dryfoos, TPF STSM > IBM Corporation, 2455 South Rd. - P922, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > T/L 293-5960 or 845-433-5960, FAX 914-432-9647 > dryfoos@us.ibm.com > TPF Systems, S/390 Software Development > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From jimracey at adelphia.net Mon Nov 22 22:26:10 2004 From: jimracey at adelphia.net (jimracey@adelphia.net) Date: Mon Nov 22 22:26:20 2004 Subject: [wxqc] QC Message-ID: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Nov 23 00:43:55 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue Nov 23 00:44:03 2004 Subject: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Hi Larry, Could the fine folks at Davis please advise us why the APRSWXNET/CWOP reports formatted by Weatherlink 5.4 for Windows does not use the corrected/calibrated readings, but uses the raw data instead. With Jim Racey's station below, the RH and pressure corrections are not being transmitted. Also, WeatherLink is trasmitting relative humidity values greater than 100%. Also, any progress getting 10 minute gust encoded into the APRS message? Many thanks, Dave Helms CW0351 **************************************************************************** ********************************* Jim Racey Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4 Reports CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/raw.cgi?call=cw1500 CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230401z3906.02N/07810.82W_048/002g...t047P000 h94b09877.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230001z3906.02N/07810.82W_021/000g...t051P000 h90b09880.Dvs APRSWXNET Decoded Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wx.cgi?call=cw1500 temp wind spd gst pcp pcp pcp rh press dir mph mph 1hr 24h min altg 20041123040148 47 48 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 987.7 (29.167 inches) 20041123043147 47 328 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 95 987.7 (29.167 inches) WeatherUnderground - Station Name: KVASTEPH2 http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KVASTEPH2&d ay=22&year=2004&month=11 Time Temperature DewPt Pressure Wind Wind Speed Wind Gust RH Hly Precip 23:00 47.1 ?F / 8.4 ?C 44.6 ?F / 7.0 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NNE 3mph / 4.8km/h 6mph / 9.7km/h 91% 0.00in / 0mm 23:30 46.9 ?F / 8.3 ?C 44.7 ?F / 7.1 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NE 1mph / 1.6km/h 5mph / 8.0km/h 92% 0.00in / 0mm Current Weather at Jim's Weather Station http://users.adelphia.net/~jracey/ 11/22/04 11:31p Temp RH DewPt Wind Barometer Rain AnRain Wind Chill THW Index Heat Index 46.8?F 92% 44.6?F NNW/1.0mph 30.071 0.00 33.71in 46.8?F 47.0?F 47.0?F CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports RH > 100% CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220431z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t051P000 h101b09925.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220501z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P... h101b09921.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220531z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t051P000 h101b09922.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220601z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P000 h101b09919.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220631z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220701z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220731z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220801z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220831z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09911.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220901z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220931z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221001z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221031z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221101z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t049P000 h101b09912.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221131z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/001g...t050P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221201z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221231z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049P000 h101b09917.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221302z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t049P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221331z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221401z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050P000 h101b09918.Dvs -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey@adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Nov 23 00:47:17 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue Nov 23 00:47:21 2004 Subject: [wxqc] QC In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Hi Jim, This appears to be a Davis WeatherLink issue, as you point out. As a stop-gap, you might try applying the correcting directly on your WMII hardware and remove the correction from the software, if possible. Dave CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey@adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Nov 23 00:54:33 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue Nov 23 00:54:36 2004 Subject: [wxqc] QC In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: P.S. The pressure APRSWXNET/CWOP requires is the altimeter (ALSTG), not mean sea level pressure (MSLP). Altimeter corrects for station elevation only (1 foot = 0.001 inch mercury) with no virtual temperature correction. Altimeter is typically expressed in inches of mercury (QNHXX.XXINS) on ASOS METAR reports, but is transmitted in millibars units when encoded in the APRS/CWOP messages. CWOP wants altimeter to keep the pressure reduction procedure as simple as directly comparing your pressure to the nearby ASOS station, even is the ASOS station differs in elevation above sea level. Dave CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey@adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Tue Nov 23 09:31:52 2004 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Tue Nov 23 09:31:59 2004 Subject: [wxqc] QC In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Jim, Two suggestions: 1) Contact Davis and see if they have an optional software switch to send the calibrated values, or if they might include this capability in a future upgrade. 2) Use Weather Display instead of Weather Link. Weather Display will send the calibrated values. Mike On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 jimracey@adelphia.net wrote: > I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. > > Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. > > Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. > > I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) > > The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? > > Jim Racey CW1500 > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From jimracey at adelphia.net Tue Nov 23 19:04:25 2004 From: jimracey at adelphia.net (jimracey@adelphia.net) Date: Tue Nov 23 19:04:34 2004 Subject: [wxqc] QC followup Message-ID: <20041124000425.FNIK14438.mta9.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Thanks to Dave and Mike for the info. This evening I went to the console to change the cal for the humidity and discovered it was already cal at -3 as I had set from the pc program. So I cannot affect the raw reading. The delima is that I cannot control what data is sent to CWOP. And I cannot cal the altimeter nor the raw sensor readings. I can calibrate at the console &/or at the pc and achieve excellent results for my live pc display and for reporting to W-Ungrd & to my site. The Weather Display mentioned by Mike...is that another program? Thanks, Jim Racey From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Wed Nov 24 10:45:26 2004 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Wed Nov 24 10:45:32 2004 Subject: [wxqc] QC followup In-Reply-To: <20041124000425.FNIK14438.mta9.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Jim, Weather Display is a software package that works with lots of weather stations, and can send the data to CWOP. See: http://www.weather-display.com Mike On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 jimracey@adelphia.net wrote: > Thanks to Dave and Mike for the info. This evening I went to the console to change the cal for the humidity and discovered it was already cal at -3 as I had set from the pc program. So I cannot affect the raw reading. > > The delima is that I cannot control what data is sent to CWOP. And I cannot cal the altimeter nor the raw sensor readings. I can calibrate at the console &/or at the pc and achieve excellent results for my live pc display and for reporting to W-Ungrd & to my site. > > The Weather Display mentioned by Mike...is that another program? > > Thanks, Jim Racey > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From philip at gladstonefamily.net Wed Nov 24 22:25:47 2004 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Wed Nov 24 22:25:53 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Reforwarded: QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Message-ID: <41A550BB.3000001@gladstonefamily.net> FYI... -----Original Message----- From: Larry D. Smith [mailto:larrys@davisnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:16 AM To: Sandy and David Helms Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hello, Before WeatherLink 5.5, the calibration offsets were not taken into acount. With 5.5 they are. Upgrading to 5.5 will mean that corrected data will be applied to the APRS reports. Larry Smith Tech Support 510-732-7814 -----Original Message----- From: Sandy and David Helms [mailto:dshelms@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:55 PM To: Larry D. Smith Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hi Larry, By upgrading to WL5.5, does that mean the corrections to the data will be applied to the APRS reports? Thanks again, Dave Helms -----Original Message----- From: Larry D. Smith [mailto:larrys@davisnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:38 AM To: Sandy and David Helms Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hello, APRS users with Weather Monitor II or Weather Wizzard III stations should update to WeatherLink version 5.5. Click on the link below to upgrade... http://www.davisnet.com/support/weather/software.asp I have no knowledge of any additions to the APRS upload. I'll forward your email to a cognizant person about adding the 10 minute gust encoded into the APRS message (although I can't promise anything). Larry Smith Tech Support 510-732-7814 -----Original Message----- From: Sandy and David Helms [mailto:dshelms@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:44 PM To: Larry D. Smith; Discussion of data quality issues Cc: Russ Chadwick; Dave and Sandy Helms; jimracey@adelphia.net Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hi Larry, Could the fine folks at Davis please advise us why the APRSWXNET/CWOP reports formatted by Weatherlink 5.4 for Windows does not use the corrected/calibrated readings, but uses the raw data instead. With Jim Racey's station below, the RH and pressure corrections are not being transmitted. Also, WeatherLink is trasmitting relative humidity values greater than 100%. Also, any progress getting 10 minute gust encoded into the APRS message? Many thanks, Dave Helms CW0351 **************************************************************************** ********************************* Jim Racey Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4 Reports CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/raw.cgi?call=cw1500 CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230401z3906.02N/07810.82W_048/002g...t047 CW1500>P000 h94b09877.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230001z3906.02N/07810.82W_021/000g...t051 CW1500>P000 h90b09880.Dvs APRSWXNET Decoded Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wx.cgi?call=cw1500 temp wind spd gst pcp pcp pcp rh press dir mph mph 1hr 24h min altg 20041123040148 47 48 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 987.7 (29.167 inches) 20041123043147 47 328 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 95 987.7 (29.167 inches) WeatherUnderground - Station Name: KVASTEPH2 http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KVASTEPH2&d ay=22&year=2004&month=11 Time Temperature DewPt Pressure Wind Wind Speed Wind Gust RH Hly Precip 23:00 47.1 ?F / 8.4 ?C 44.6 ?F / 7.0 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NNE 3mph / 4.8km/h 6mph / 9.7km/h 91% 0.00in / 0mm 23:30 46.9 ?F / 8.3 ?C 44.7 ?F / 7.1 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NE 1mph / 1.6km/h 5mph / 8.0km/h 92% 0.00in / 0mm Current Weather at Jim's Weather Station http://users.adelphia.net/~jracey/ 11/22/04 11:31p Temp RH DewPt Wind Barometer Rain AnRain Wind Chill THW Index Heat Index 46.8?F 92% 44.6?F NNW/1.0mph 30.071 0.00 33.71in 46.8?F 47.0?F 47.0?F CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports RH > 100% CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220431z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t051 CW1500>P000 h101b09925.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220501z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P... h101b09921.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220531z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t051 CW1500>P000 h101b09922.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220601z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09919.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220631z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220701z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220731z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220801z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220831z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09911.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220901z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220931z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221001z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221031z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221101z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09912.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221131z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/001g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221201z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221231z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09917.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221302z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221331z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221401z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09918.Dvs -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey@adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 From jimracey at adelphia.net Fri Nov 26 12:31:02 2004 From: jimracey at adelphia.net (jimracey@adelphia.net) Date: Fri Nov 26 12:31:12 2004 Subject: [wxqc] 5.5 Message-ID: <20041126173103.QRQY12490.mta13.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> I have installed and am employing WL 5.5 and am now sending corrected/calibrated data to CWOP. Thanks to all. Jim Racey CW1500 From stanzepa at earthlink.net Sat Nov 27 10:05:56 2004 From: stanzepa at earthlink.net (Stan Horzepa) Date: Sat Nov 27 10:06:07 2004 Subject: [wxqc] questions Message-ID: I have been receiving weather quality reports for the past week and I am not sure how to interpret the information I am receiving. Here is the first line of the latest report I received: * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) * 36(-2.4)*33.6(-6.9)* 297(17.7)*10.4(-3.5) I assume the first number in each column is my weather station's reading and the number in parenthesis is the observed error of the first reading. The explanation received with each quality report states, "The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' The error value is 'analysis - observed'. I.e. if your observed value is higher than the computed value, then the error will be negative." Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct interpretation? What about the positive observed error? Is my DD of 297, 17.7 degrees LOWER than the computed value. How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, is that something I should check out? And now for the one more question, how is the computed value arrived at? Is it essentially a comparison to the other nearby weather data? Thank you for any help any one can provide. Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU From philip at gladstonefamily.net Sat Nov 27 11:03:02 2004 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sat Nov 27 11:03:13 2004 Subject: [wxqc] questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A8A536.9030903@gladstonefamily.net> Stan, Stan Horzepa wrote: >Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed >value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and >my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct >interpretation? > > This is correct. The error values are calculated for each reading that your station reports. If the error exceeds a threshold, then the record is included in the email that is sent to you. The threshold for temperature & dewpoint is 6 F and that is why this particular record was sent. >How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local >conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter >with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack >with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the >weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 >degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too >concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the >computed value, is that something I should check out? > Personally, I wouldn't bother checking anything unless you get a significant number of error readings. Also, a check of the graph may show you that there is a consistent bias in your values. This bias may be due to local conditions, or it could be a calibration error. Philip -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041127/481acc44/smime.bin From lcerney at viawest.net Sat Nov 27 11:51:02 2004 From: lcerney at viawest.net (Larry Cerney) Date: Sat Nov 27 11:51:10 2004 Subject: [wxqc] questions In-Reply-To: <41A8A536.9030903@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <200411271651.iARGp3BU004816@spring.viawest.net> Philip, I, too, receive QA reports on my WX data. First question is do the reports only show reports that are considered in error? If so, it appears all my daily reports are erroneous. In particular, I have been adjusting my baro to coincide with the reports from the local airports at: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/den/awebshtml/webpres.shtml and have been pretty successful in doing so based on the regression analysis from MesoWest at: http://www.met.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/regress_database.cgi?stn=AP190 A couple of question regarding pressure readings. First, I calibrate my barometer to give reading of altimeter pressure as opposed to sea level pressure. Is that correct? Second, I think I understand how your QA works by comparing my reading with 5 nearby stations. How effective is the QA if the stations around me have their stations reporting sea level pressures or are generally incorrect? Please explain the difference, if any, between what I have been using to QA my reports, MesoWest, with the QA reports I receive from you. I want to get it right and right now I'm not sure which to believe as they are so different. Reminds me of the old Chinese proverb "A man with one watch always knows what time it is. A man with two is never quite sure." Thanks Larry K0ANI AP190 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." --Albert Einstein -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Philip Gladstone Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:03 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: Re: [wxqc] questions Stan, Stan Horzepa wrote: >Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed >value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and >my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct >interpretation? > > This is correct. The error values are calculated for each reading that your station reports. If the error exceeds a threshold, then the record is included in the email that is sent to you. The threshold for temperature & dewpoint is 6 F and that is why this particular record was sent. >How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local >conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter >with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack >with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the >weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 >degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too >concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the >computed value, is that something I should check out? > Personally, I wouldn't bother checking anything unless you get a significant number of error readings. Also, a check of the graph may show you that there is a consistent bias in your values. This bias may be due to local conditions, or it could be a calibration error. Philip -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Nov 27 12:00:21 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Sat Nov 27 12:00:27 2004 Subject: [wxqc] questions Message-ID: <112720041700.16597.41A8B2A4000E9F02000040D522007348409C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Stan, I would not be concened with hourly QC stats, you have to look at the longer term trends. I looked at your recent 24 hour QCMS graphs (AP555, WA1LOU-15): http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=AP555 1. Pressure: Your observed data seems to have a 1 mb (00.03 inch) low bias, which indicated a positive adjustment of +00.03 inch (INS) increase. Your goal should be +/- 00.03 inch of the analysis. 2. Temperature: In general, your temperature looks good. There could be an issue with your temps running a bit warm during maximum heating which <> indication a shielding issue. Your goal should be +/- 1.0F of the analysis; but +/- 3.0F is good given the local influences that your refer to. The thing to avoid is solar comtamination of the temperature sensor. 3. Dew Point: Its pretty clear your dew point reports are consistently running too hot by +5 to +7F. Home weather station sensors are typically challenged in their measurements of humidity so you are not alone. I have the same problem with my Peet Bros hygristor (dew point) sensor and adjusted the values by 3F using a potentiometer/set screw located on the temp/dew point board using Peet's instructions. See the picture at the bottom of this page: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/tanterra_sensors.htm If you can adjust your dew point, do it during a well mixed (moderate winds) a day or two after a cold front passage before the return flow develops and use the larger ASOS (not AWOS) dew points as a basis for comparison. The goal should be to get within +/- 2F of the analysis, but +/- 4F is reasonable. The good thing about your dew points is that they are consistent and someone using the data can generally correct the bias. 4. Wind Direction and Speed: Very tough to assess "correctness" of winds for personal weather stations as they are usually in the suburban tree canopy and the anemometers are at various non-standard heights above ground level. Your setup seems to be better than most at measuring winds without influence of the urban canopy. Looking at the weekly and monthly QCMS data, you don't have any "flagged" events over the long term. The thing to do is watch your local ASOS stations: KHVN (New Haven), KOXC (Oxford), and KHFD (Hartford) during a moderate winds in the afternoon when there are no radiation inversions in your area. It may be the case that your wind direction is off by 20 degres (need to add +20 degrees) as compared to the environmental story, but I really can't say without watching it for a length of time during a wind event. The analysis field is largely based on an optimal interpolation of your neighbor's observations. See here: http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_descrip.html Hope this helps, Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message -------------- > I have been receiving weather quality reports for the past week and I am not > sure how to interpret the information I am receiving. Here is the first line > of the latest report I received: > > * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > * 36(-2.4)*33.6(-6.9)* 297(17.7)*10.4(-3.5) > > I assume the first number in each column is my weather station's reading and > the number in parenthesis is the observed error of the first reading. > > The explanation received with each quality report states, "The values > displayed are 'Observed (error)' The error value is 'analysis - observed'. > I.e. if your observed value is higher than the computed value, then the > error will be negative." > > Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed > value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and > my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct > interpretation? > > What about the positive observed error? Is my DD of 297, 17.7 degrees LOWER > than the computed value. > > How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local > conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter > with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack > with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the > weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 > degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too > concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the > computed value, is that something I should check out? > > And now for the one more question, how is the computed value arrived at? Is > it essentially a comparison to the other nearby weather data? > > Thank you for any help any one can provide. > > Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU > > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041127/64d4965d/attachment.html From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Nov 27 12:19:58 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Sat Nov 27 12:20:02 2004 Subject: [wxqc] questions - pressure Message-ID: <112720041719.1095.41A8B73E00011BBD0000044722007621949C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Larry, We want people to send altimeter pressure values to CWOP (corrected for elevation above sea level, but not virtual temperature). Using altimeter pressure values allow people to directly compare their pressure with near-by ASOS altimeter reports (XX.XXINS) without knowing exactly what your elevation is. I believe the QCMS method of using your neighbor's pressure values can result in some problems as they could have pressure problems too. Thus, I wouldn't get too excited about small QCMS derived pressure (altimeter) has a small bias. I believe you are on the right track by using local ASOS altimeter pressure values to adjust your station's pressure. When making pressure adjustments, compare several pressure readings, with the same observation times, during nearly uniform high pressure and light winds (low pressure gradients). Avoid doing comparisons with area ASOS altimeter pressures values during moderate wind events and near thunderstorms. Hope this helps, Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message -------------- > Philip, > > I, too, receive QA reports on my WX data. First question is do the reports > only show reports that are considered in error? If so, it appears all my > daily reports are erroneous. > > In particular, I have been adjusting my baro to coincide with the reports > from the local airports at: > http://www.crh.noaa.gov/den/awebshtml/webpres.shtml > and have been pretty successful in doing so based on the regression analysis > from MesoWest at: > http://www.met.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/regress_database.cgi?stn=AP190 > > A couple of question regarding pressure readings. First, I calibrate my > barometer to give reading of altimeter pressure as opposed to sea level > pressure. Is that correct? Second, I think I understand how your QA works > by comparing my reading with 5 nearby stations. How effective is the QA if > the stations around me have their stations reporting sea level pressures or > are generally incorrect? > > Please explain the difference, if any, between what I have been using to QA > my reports, MesoWest, with the QA reports I receive from you. > > I want to get it right and right now I'm not sure which to believe as they > are so different. Reminds me of the old Chinese proverb "A man with one > watch always knows what time it is. A man with two is never quite sure." > > Thanks > Larry > K0ANI > AP190 > > "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > --Albert Einstein > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Philip > Gladstone > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:03 AM > To: Discussion of data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] questions > > Stan, > > Stan Horzepa wrote: > > >Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed > >value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, > and > >my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a > correct > >interpretation? > > > > > This is correct. > > The error values are calculated for each reading that your station > reports. If the error exceeds a threshold, then the record is included > in the email that is sent to you. > > The threshold for temperature & dewpoint is 6 F and that is why this > particular record was sent. > > >How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local > >conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter > >with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack > >with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the > >weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 > >degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be > too > >concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the > >computed value, is that something I should check out? > > > Personally, I wouldn't bother checking anything unless you get a > significant number of error readings. Also, a check of the graph may > show you that there is a consistent bias in your values. This bias may > be due to local conditions, or it could be a calibration error. > > Philip > > -- > Philip Gladstone > * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041127/d20a2148/attachment.html From sam at wa4phy.net Sat Nov 27 21:47:54 2004 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Sat Nov 27 21:47:58 2004 Subject: [wxqc] While on the subject.... Message-ID: I noticed a few changes here and there of late, and I'm glad to see them. Makes looking at the graphs much simpler now. On the graph page, I see several of the ASOS stations in my neck of the woods, namely KAGS, KDNL, KCAE, etc. Looking at the graphs for them, compared to my station, I see some discrepancies in the observed values vs. their respective values, in that lines are generally very smooth. When looking at my own readings vs. the observed values, most graphs are either very "stepped" or ragged. Philip, or Dave, can you give an interpretation as to why some are smooth and others are stepped? Is this perhaps due to the number of readings being sent from the ASOS stations at hourly intervals vs. 5 mins (or 15) from CWOP stations? One last questions.... do the various ASOS / WFO's WSO's receive the mailings as we do when values are out of kilter or is that up to the individual stations. Seems logical now that they would not, but........ --- Snowman From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Nov 27 22:36:25 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Sat Nov 27 22:36:34 2004 Subject: [wxqc] While on the subject.... stair steps? Message-ID: <112820040336.27083.41A947B90002ECB4000069CB22058860149C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Sam, Stepped vs. Smooth: Mike Barth at FSL explained this last week (my assumptions were not exactly correct). Yes, the stepped QC is influenced by the reporting interval and you are correct about the ASOS data availability is hourly although AWOS stations (smaller unmanned non-FAA and non-NWS stations) report every 20 minutes. Becauses the mix of stations varies depending on the set of "buddy" stations in the pool, the optimal interpolation (IO) analysis is stair stepped. For the ASOS, the mix of stations is constant so the IO appears more smooth. FSL designed QCMS for the operational workstations used by the NWS meteorologists, AWIPS. QCMS statistics are integrated into AWIPS and available to the NWS Weather Forecast Office (WFO) meteorologists. Individual WFOs can and generally do subscribe to the FSL MADIS mesonet database which include CWOP/APRSWXNET weather reports. The weather reports and the QC statistics come with the raw observations. See ya, Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message -------------- > I noticed a few changes here and there of late, and I'm glad to see > them. Makes looking at the graphs much simpler now. > > On the graph page, I see several of the ASOS stations in my neck of the > woods, namely KAGS, KDNL, KCAE, etc. Looking at the graphs for them, > compared to my station, I see some discrepancies in the observed values > vs. their respective values, in that lines are generally very smooth. > When looking at my own readings vs. the observed values, most graphs are > either very "stepped" or ragged. Philip, or Dave, can you give an > interpretation as to why some are smooth and others are stepped? Is > this perhaps due to the number of readings being sent from the ASOS > stations at hourly intervals vs. 5 mins (or 15) from CWOP stations? One > last questions.... do the various ASOS / WFO's WSO's receive the > mailings as we do when values are out of kilter or is that up to the > individual stations. Seems logical now that they would not, but........ > > --- > Snowman > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041128/20925c29/attachment-0001.html From philip at gladstonefamily.net Sun Nov 28 09:22:38 2004 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sun Nov 28 09:22:42 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 In-Reply-To: <41A88F17.14659.73158B@localhost> References: <41A3A767.26434.74F2D9B@localhost> <41A88F17.14659.73158B@localhost> Message-ID: <41A9DF2E.5040003@gladstonefamily.net> Arthur, It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is reporting correctly? Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting stations, and 1400 not reporting. Philip Arthur Cadoret wrote: >Philip, >Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North >Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as >Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. > >Arthur > >On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: > >Arthur, > >It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it >is reporting correctly (or at all). > >The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported >data within the last week. > >Philip > >Arthur Cadoret wrote: > > >>Philip, >> >>I am asking this just out of curiosity. >>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket >>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic >>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is whether >>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or >>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all I >>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that >>relate to it. >> >>Regards, >>Arthur Cadoret >>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI >>cumulus@att.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041128/569f5f58/smime.bin From dshelms at comcast.net Mon Nov 29 00:51:41 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Mon Nov 29 00:51:48 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 In-Reply-To: <41A9DF2E.5040003@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: All: NWS and FAA combined own and operate 880 ASOS (550 FAA, 330 NWS). All other stations are AWOS operated by regional and state aviation authorities. AWOS station data are disseminated in a variety of ways (many have an autometed transmit times of every 20 minutes). Philip appears to have access to the FAA and NWS ASOS, but not others. Dave CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Philip Gladstone Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 9:23 AM To: Arthur Cadoret; Discussion of data quality issues Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 Arthur, It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is reporting correctly? Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting stations, and 1400 not reporting. Philip Arthur Cadoret wrote: >Philip, >Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North >Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as >Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. > >Arthur > >On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: > >Arthur, > >It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it >is reporting correctly (or at all). > >The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported >data within the last week. > >Philip > >Arthur Cadoret wrote: > > >>Philip, >> >>I am asking this just out of curiosity. >>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket >>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic >>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is whether >>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or >>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all I >>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that >>relate to it. >> >>Regards, >>Arthur Cadoret >>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI >>cumulus@att.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net From mchalkley at benesyst.com Mon Nov 29 08:43:18 2004 From: mchalkley at benesyst.com (Mark A. Chalkley) Date: Mon Nov 29 08:44:00 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Quality reading interpretation and adjustments In-Reply-To: References: <41A9DF2E.5040003@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <101723434.20041129084318@benesyst.com> I set up my Davis VP almost a year ago (CW1566), but never having had one before, when I set the elevation, I set it for the site, not the placement of the sensors. So my elevation of 10' is about 10' low (not much in distance, but it's an error of 100%...). My graphs (http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=C1566) seem to consistently show that my barometric readings are usually .5 or so millibars low, though they do occasionally intersect, but certainly the elevation couldn't make that much difference, could it? Should I recalibrate the sensor, or is this a very minor data quality discrepancy? The temp and dew point readings seem pretty good, to me. The dew point looks high, but my station is 25' from the river, so that should account for that, right? Mark On Monday, November 29, 2004, 12:51:41 AM, Sandy and David Helms wrote: SaDH> All: SaDH> NWS and FAA combined own and operate 880 ASOS (550 FAA, 330 NWS). All other SaDH> stations are AWOS operated by regional and state aviation authorities. AWOS SaDH> station data are disseminated in a variety of ways (many have an autometed SaDH> transmit times of every 20 minutes). Philip appears to have access to the SaDH> FAA and NWS ASOS, but not others. SaDH> Dave SaDH> CW0351 SaDH> -----Original Message----- SaDH> From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Philip SaDH> Gladstone SaDH> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 9:23 AM SaDH> To: Arthur Cadoret; Discussion of data quality issues SaDH> Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 SaDH> Arthur, SaDH> It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just SaDH> searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for SaDH> KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is SaDH> reporting correctly? SaDH> Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use SaDH> (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting SaDH> stations, and 1400 not reporting. SaDH> Philip SaDH> Arthur Cadoret wrote: >>Philip, >>Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North >>Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as >>Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. >> >>Arthur >> >>On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: >> >>Arthur, >> >>It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it >>is reporting correctly (or at all). >> >>The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported >>data within the last week. >> >>Philip >> >>Arthur Cadoret wrote: >> >> >>>Philip, >>> >>>I am asking this just out of curiosity. >>>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket >>>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic >>>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is SaDH> whether >>>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or >>>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all SaDH> I >>>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that >>>relate to it. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Arthur Cadoret >>>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI >>>cumulus@att.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> SaDH> -- SaDH> Philip Gladstone SaDH> * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> _______________________________________________ SaDH> wxqc mailing list SaDH> wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From albert.arnold at ps.ge.com Mon Nov 29 08:46:58 2004 From: albert.arnold at ps.ge.com (Arnold, Albert (GE Energy)) Date: Mon Nov 29 09:26:02 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Quality reading interpretation and adjustments Message-ID: <25A89C8BA42DD3118A220008C7916E2B1531DFFB@nyschx11psge.sch.ge.com> Mark, That is a good question, likewise, I set my VP for elevation of the site, not the placement of the height of the instrument. Al -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Mark A. Chalkley Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:43 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: [wxqc] Quality reading interpretation and adjustments I set up my Davis VP almost a year ago (CW1566), but never having had one before, when I set the elevation, I set it for the site, not the placement of the sensors. So my elevation of 10' is about 10' low (not much in distance, but it's an error of 100%...). My graphs (http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=C1566) seem to consistently show that my barometric readings are usually .5 or so millibars low, though they do occasionally intersect, but certainly the elevation couldn't make that much difference, could it? Should I recalibrate the sensor, or is this a very minor data quality discrepancy? The temp and dew point readings seem pretty good, to me. The dew point looks high, but my station is 25' from the river, so that should account for that, right? Mark On Monday, November 29, 2004, 12:51:41 AM, Sandy and David Helms wrote: SaDH> All: SaDH> NWS and FAA combined own and operate 880 ASOS (550 FAA, 330 NWS). All other SaDH> stations are AWOS operated by regional and state aviation authorities. AWOS SaDH> station data are disseminated in a variety of ways (many have an autometed SaDH> transmit times of every 20 minutes). Philip appears to have access to the SaDH> FAA and NWS ASOS, but not others. SaDH> Dave SaDH> CW0351 SaDH> -----Original Message----- SaDH> From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Philip SaDH> Gladstone SaDH> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 9:23 AM SaDH> To: Arthur Cadoret; Discussion of data quality issues SaDH> Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 SaDH> Arthur, SaDH> It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just SaDH> searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for SaDH> KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is SaDH> reporting correctly? SaDH> Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use SaDH> (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting SaDH> stations, and 1400 not reporting. SaDH> Philip SaDH> Arthur Cadoret wrote: >>Philip, >>Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North >>Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as >>Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. >> >>Arthur >> >>On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: >> >>Arthur, >> >>It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it >>is reporting correctly (or at all). >> >>The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported >>data within the last week. >> >>Philip >> >>Arthur Cadoret wrote: >> >> >>>Philip, >>> >>>I am asking this just out of curiosity. >>>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket >>>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic >>>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is SaDH> whether >>>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or >>>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all SaDH> I >>>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that >>>relate to it. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Arthur Cadoret >>>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI >>>cumulus@att.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> SaDH> -- SaDH> Philip Gladstone SaDH> * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> _______________________________________________ SaDH> wxqc mailing list SaDH> wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From dshelms at comcast.net Mon Nov 29 11:12:05 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Mon Nov 29 11:12:13 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Quality reading interpretation and adjustments In-Reply-To: <25A89C8BA42DD3118A220008C7916E2B1531DFFB@nyschx11psge.sch.ge.com> Message-ID: Good questions... The station elevation level generally refers to the height of the pressure instrument above sea level (for pressure reduction calculations). We need to expand our metadata fields to accommodate the temp/rh (for potential temp comparisons) and anemometer (frictional considerations) as well. For now, when we ask for "elevation", its for the height of the pressure sensor above sea level. Mark: If your pressure is within 0.5 milibar of the analysis, you are doing very well and need not make an adjustment. I would cross check your pressure (altimeter) with your area ASOS/AWOS during a light wind day and see is your pressure values are within 00.03 INS (inches) of the other METAR reports. Note 1.0 milibar (mb) = 00.03 INS (inches of mercury) West Point, VA, (KFYJ) looks like a good station to compare your altimeter pressure to. AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFYJ gives the KFYJ AWOS station phone number as 804-765-2307 which is automatically updated every minute. I think this is local call for you. Your temp/dew point are great! Yes, your slight positive bias for the dew point is probably a result of your close proximity to the river (Piankatank?). Dave CW0351 P.S. Drove through old Glouster yesterday, still looking for waterfront property but no luck! -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Arnold, Albert (GE Energy) Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:47 AM To: Mark A. Chalkley; Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Quality reading interpretation and adjustments Mark, That is a good question, likewise, I set my VP for elevation of the site, not the placement of the height of the instrument. Al -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Mark A. Chalkley Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:43 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: [wxqc] Quality reading interpretation and adjustments I set up my Davis VP almost a year ago (CW1566), but never having had one before, when I set the elevation, I set it for the site, not the placement of the sensors. So my elevation of 10' is about 10' low (not much in distance, but it's an error of 100%...). My graphs (http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=C1566) seem to consistently show that my barometric readings are usually .5 or so millibars low, though they do occasionally intersect, but certainly the elevation couldn't make that much difference, could it? Should I recalibrate the sensor, or is this a very minor data quality discrepancy? The temp and dew point readings seem pretty good, to me. The dew point looks high, but my station is 25' from the river, so that should account for that, right? Mark On Monday, November 29, 2004, 12:51:41 AM, Sandy and David Helms wrote: SaDH> All: SaDH> NWS and FAA combined own and operate 880 ASOS (550 FAA, 330 NWS). All other SaDH> stations are AWOS operated by regional and state aviation authorities. AWOS SaDH> station data are disseminated in a variety of ways (many have an autometed SaDH> transmit times of every 20 minutes). Philip appears to have access to the SaDH> FAA and NWS ASOS, but not others. SaDH> Dave SaDH> CW0351 SaDH> -----Original Message----- SaDH> From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Philip SaDH> Gladstone SaDH> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 9:23 AM SaDH> To: Arthur Cadoret; Discussion of data quality issues SaDH> Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 SaDH> Arthur, SaDH> It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just SaDH> searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for SaDH> KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is SaDH> reporting correctly? SaDH> Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use SaDH> (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting SaDH> stations, and 1400 not reporting. SaDH> Philip SaDH> Arthur Cadoret wrote: >>Philip, >>Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North >>Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as >>Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. >> >>Arthur >> >>On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: >> >>Arthur, >> >>It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it >>is reporting correctly (or at all). >> >>The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported >>data within the last week. >> >>Philip >> >>Arthur Cadoret wrote: >> >> >>>Philip, >>> >>>I am asking this just out of curiosity. >>>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket >>>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic >>>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is SaDH> whether >>>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or >>>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all SaDH> I >>>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that >>>relate to it. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Arthur Cadoret >>>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI >>>cumulus@att.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> SaDH> -- SaDH> Philip Gladstone SaDH> * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> _______________________________________________ SaDH> wxqc mailing list SaDH> wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net SaDH> http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Mon Nov 29 11:45:30 2004 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Mon Nov 29 11:45:37 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 In-Reply-To: <41A9DF2E.5040003@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: Philip, The qc5 directory is for ASOS stations that are identified as such in a list that we have that may not be totally current. All the other K* stations can be found in our "OTHER-MTR" category, in the qc4 directory (KSFZ is in qc4). Mike On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Philip Gladstone wrote: > Arthur, > > It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just > searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for > KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is > reporting correctly? > > Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use > (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting > stations, and 1400 not reporting. > > Philip > > Arthur Cadoret wrote: > > >Philip, > >Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North > >Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as > >Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. > > > >Arthur > > > >On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: > > > >Arthur, > > > >It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it > >is reporting correctly (or at all). > > > >The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported > >data within the last week. > > > >Philip > > > >Arthur Cadoret wrote: > > > > > >>Philip, > >> > >>I am asking this just out of curiosity. > >>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket > >>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic > >>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is whether > >>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or > >>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all I > >>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that > >>relate to it. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Arthur Cadoret > >>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI > >>cumulus@att.net > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From philip at gladstonefamily.net Mon Nov 29 19:54:58 2004 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Mon Nov 29 19:55:06 2004 Subject: [wxqc] Missing Kxxx stations (was Re: Question from CW1732) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41ABC4E2.50109@gladstonefamily.net> I'm now grabbing the qc4 directory as well and merging that in. This should increase the number of Kxxx stations with data and so they should show up as 'nearby stations'. I've also added the lat/long for each nearby station along with a mapquest link that shows you where they are. This should happen for tonight's run. Philip Michael F Barth wrote: >Philip, > >The qc5 directory is for ASOS stations that are identified as such >in a list that we have that may not be totally current. All the >other K* stations can be found in our "OTHER-MTR" category, in the >qc4 directory (KSFZ is in qc4). > >Mike > > > -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041129/c2ef74a3/smime.bin From dryfoos at us.ibm.com Fri Nov 19 16:47:37 2004 From: dryfoos at us.ibm.com (Robert Dryfoos) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:47:37 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] weather quality Message-ID: I am curious about the weather quality checks. The reports I keep receiving do not seem to factor in the effects of Lake George on my local conditions. I have two weather stations within a couple of hundred feet of each other and they record very similar readings most of the time. I set it up that way because I was hoping to detect difference between being on the lake (my reporting station is on the roof of my boathouse, about 25 feet above and 25 feet out into the lake. The other unit sits on the roof of my home. While usually very close I have recorded temperature differences as large as 9 degrees though they usually are within 1 degree of each other. Since the two stations seem to validate the data I am transmitting, why are there errors ?? Robert Dryfoos, TPF STSM IBM Corporation, 2455 South Rd. - P922, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 T/L 293-5960 or 845-433-5960, FAX 914-432-9647 dryfoos at us.ibm.com TPF Systems, S/390 Software Development From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Mon Nov 22 16:29:23 2004 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:29:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [wxqc] weather quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert, I looked at the QC statistics for your station and they don't seem that bad to me. Our QC isn't perfect, of course, and it's quite possible that there are some microscale meteorological changes that you detect that aren't detected at the 8 surrounding stations that are used in the spatial consistency check that generates the errors. The QC failure rates found in the text QC messages available from either Russ Chadwick's website or our website (http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_messages.html) are meant to be used statistically. We only report stations that have failed the QC 25% of the time or more during the duration covered by the daily/weekly/monthly reports found on our website -- if you show up here on a regular basis then you may have a problem, if not (and you don't), don't worry about it. The time series graphs that Philip produces showing the reported and analyzed values can be useful for finding biases that can be corrected by an offset added to your data. From briefly glancing at the time series plots for your station, I don't think that's an issue. This all having been said, there is one thing you can doublecheck. The station elevation is very important in the QC of temperature and pressure data. The station table we have shows your station as having an elevation of 107 meters. I interpolated from a 30" digital terrain file to your site and got 151.208 meters. Since 30" provides 1-km resolution, your measurement is probably more reliable, but if you have the ability to use a GPS to measure your elevation (and lat/lon), it might be a good idea to doublecheck. Thanks, Mike Barth Forecast Systems Laboratory On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Robert Dryfoos wrote: > I am curious about the weather quality checks. > > The reports I keep receiving do not seem to factor in the effects of Lake > George on my local conditions. I have two weather stations within a couple > of hundred feet of each other and they record very similar readings most of > the time. I set it up that way because I was hoping to detect difference > between being on the lake (my reporting station is on the roof of my > boathouse, about 25 feet above and 25 feet out into the lake. The other > unit sits on the roof of my home. > > While usually very close I have recorded temperature differences as large > as 9 degrees though they usually are within 1 degree of each other. > > Since the two stations seem to validate the data I am transmitting, why are > there errors ?? > > Robert Dryfoos, TPF STSM > IBM Corporation, 2455 South Rd. - P922, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > T/L 293-5960 or 845-433-5960, FAX 914-432-9647 > dryfoos at us.ibm.com > TPF Systems, S/390 Software Development > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From jimracey at adelphia.net Mon Nov 22 22:26:10 2004 From: jimracey at adelphia.net (jimracey at adelphia.net) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:26:10 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] QC Message-ID: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Nov 23 00:43:55 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:43:55 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Hi Larry, Could the fine folks at Davis please advise us why the APRSWXNET/CWOP reports formatted by Weatherlink 5.4 for Windows does not use the corrected/calibrated readings, but uses the raw data instead. With Jim Racey's station below, the RH and pressure corrections are not being transmitted. Also, WeatherLink is trasmitting relative humidity values greater than 100%. Also, any progress getting 10 minute gust encoded into the APRS message? Many thanks, Dave Helms CW0351 **************************************************************************** ********************************* Jim Racey Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4 Reports CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/raw.cgi?call=cw1500 CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230401z3906.02N/07810.82W_048/002g...t047P000 h94b09877.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230001z3906.02N/07810.82W_021/000g...t051P000 h90b09880.Dvs APRSWXNET Decoded Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wx.cgi?call=cw1500 temp wind spd gst pcp pcp pcp rh press dir mph mph 1hr 24h min altg 20041123040148 47 48 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 987.7 (29.167 inches) 20041123043147 47 328 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 95 987.7 (29.167 inches) WeatherUnderground - Station Name: KVASTEPH2 http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KVASTEPH2&d ay=22&year=2004&month=11 Time Temperature DewPt Pressure Wind Wind Speed Wind Gust RH Hly Precip 23:00 47.1 ?F / 8.4 ?C 44.6 ?F / 7.0 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NNE 3mph / 4.8km/h 6mph / 9.7km/h 91% 0.00in / 0mm 23:30 46.9 ?F / 8.3 ?C 44.7 ?F / 7.1 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NE 1mph / 1.6km/h 5mph / 8.0km/h 92% 0.00in / 0mm Current Weather at Jim's Weather Station http://users.adelphia.net/~jracey/ 11/22/04 11:31p Temp RH DewPt Wind Barometer Rain AnRain Wind Chill THW Index Heat Index 46.8?F 92% 44.6?F NNW/1.0mph 30.071 0.00 33.71in 46.8?F 47.0?F 47.0?F CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports RH > 100% CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220431z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t051P000 h101b09925.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220501z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P... h101b09921.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220531z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t051P000 h101b09922.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220601z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P000 h101b09919.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220631z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220701z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220731z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220801z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220831z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09911.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220901z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220931z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221001z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221031z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221101z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t049P000 h101b09912.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221131z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/001g...t050P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221201z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221231z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049P000 h101b09917.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221302z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t049P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221331z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221401z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050P000 h101b09918.Dvs -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey at adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Nov 23 00:47:17 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:47:17 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] QC In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Hi Jim, This appears to be a Davis WeatherLink issue, as you point out. As a stop-gap, you might try applying the correcting directly on your WMII hardware and remove the correction from the software, if possible. Dave CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey at adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Nov 23 00:54:33 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:54:33 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] QC In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: P.S. The pressure APRSWXNET/CWOP requires is the altimeter (ALSTG), not mean sea level pressure (MSLP). Altimeter corrects for station elevation only (1 foot = 0.001 inch mercury) with no virtual temperature correction. Altimeter is typically expressed in inches of mercury (QNHXX.XXINS) on ASOS METAR reports, but is transmitted in millibars units when encoded in the APRS/CWOP messages. CWOP wants altimeter to keep the pressure reduction procedure as simple as directly comparing your pressure to the nearby ASOS station, even is the ASOS station differs in elevation above sea level. Dave CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey at adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Tue Nov 23 09:31:52 2004 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:31:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [wxqc] QC In-Reply-To: <20041123032610.RNTZ18426.mta10.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Jim, Two suggestions: 1) Contact Davis and see if they have an optional software switch to send the calibrated values, or if they might include this capability in a future upgrade. 2) Use Weather Display instead of Weather Link. Weather Display will send the calibrated values. Mike On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 jimracey at adelphia.net wrote: > I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. > > Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. > > Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. > > I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) > > The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? > > Jim Racey CW1500 > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From jimracey at adelphia.net Tue Nov 23 19:04:25 2004 From: jimracey at adelphia.net (jimracey at adelphia.net) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:04:25 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] QC followup Message-ID: <20041124000425.FNIK14438.mta9.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Thanks to Dave and Mike for the info. This evening I went to the console to change the cal for the humidity and discovered it was already cal at -3 as I had set from the pc program. So I cannot affect the raw reading. The delima is that I cannot control what data is sent to CWOP. And I cannot cal the altimeter nor the raw sensor readings. I can calibrate at the console &/or at the pc and achieve excellent results for my live pc display and for reporting to W-Ungrd & to my site. The Weather Display mentioned by Mike...is that another program? Thanks, Jim Racey From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Wed Nov 24 10:45:26 2004 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:45:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [wxqc] QC followup In-Reply-To: <20041124000425.FNIK14438.mta9.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> Message-ID: Jim, Weather Display is a software package that works with lots of weather stations, and can send the data to CWOP. See: http://www.weather-display.com Mike On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 jimracey at adelphia.net wrote: > Thanks to Dave and Mike for the info. This evening I went to the console to change the cal for the humidity and discovered it was already cal at -3 as I had set from the pc program. So I cannot affect the raw reading. > > The delima is that I cannot control what data is sent to CWOP. And I cannot cal the altimeter nor the raw sensor readings. I can calibrate at the console &/or at the pc and achieve excellent results for my live pc display and for reporting to W-Ungrd & to my site. > > The Weather Display mentioned by Mike...is that another program? > > Thanks, Jim Racey > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From philip at gladstonefamily.net Wed Nov 24 22:25:47 2004 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:25:47 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Reforwarded: QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Message-ID: <41A550BB.3000001@gladstonefamily.net> FYI... -----Original Message----- From: Larry D. Smith [mailto:larrys at davisnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:16 AM To: Sandy and David Helms Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hello, Before WeatherLink 5.5, the calibration offsets were not taken into acount. With 5.5 they are. Upgrading to 5.5 will mean that corrected data will be applied to the APRS reports. Larry Smith Tech Support 510-732-7814 -----Original Message----- From: Sandy and David Helms [mailto:dshelms at comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:55 PM To: Larry D. Smith Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hi Larry, By upgrading to WL5.5, does that mean the corrections to the data will be applied to the APRS reports? Thanks again, Dave Helms -----Original Message----- From: Larry D. Smith [mailto:larrys at davisnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:38 AM To: Sandy and David Helms Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hello, APRS users with Weather Monitor II or Weather Wizzard III stations should update to WeatherLink version 5.5. Click on the link below to upgrade... http://www.davisnet.com/support/weather/software.asp I have no knowledge of any additions to the APRS upload. I'll forward your email to a cognizant person about adding the 10 minute gust encoded into the APRS message (although I can't promise anything). Larry Smith Tech Support 510-732-7814 -----Original Message----- From: Sandy and David Helms [mailto:dshelms at comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:44 PM To: Larry D. Smith; Discussion of data quality issues Cc: Russ Chadwick; Dave and Sandy Helms; jimracey at adelphia.net Subject: RE: [wxqc] QC - WeatherLink v5.4 Formatted APRS reports Hi Larry, Could the fine folks at Davis please advise us why the APRSWXNET/CWOP reports formatted by Weatherlink 5.4 for Windows does not use the corrected/calibrated readings, but uses the raw data instead. With Jim Racey's station below, the RH and pressure corrections are not being transmitted. Also, WeatherLink is trasmitting relative humidity values greater than 100%. Also, any progress getting 10 minute gust encoded into the APRS message? Many thanks, Dave Helms CW0351 **************************************************************************** ********************************* Jim Racey Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4 Reports CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/raw.cgi?call=cw1500 CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230401z3906.02N/07810.82W_048/002g...t047 CW1500>P000 h94b09877.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@230001z3906.02N/07810.82W_021/000g...t051 CW1500>P000 h90b09880.Dvs APRSWXNET Decoded Reports from station CW1500 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wx.cgi?call=cw1500 temp wind spd gst pcp pcp pcp rh press dir mph mph 1hr 24h min altg 20041123040148 47 48 2.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 987.7 (29.167 inches) 20041123043147 47 328 1.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 95 987.7 (29.167 inches) WeatherUnderground - Station Name: KVASTEPH2 http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KVASTEPH2&d ay=22&year=2004&month=11 Time Temperature DewPt Pressure Wind Wind Speed Wind Gust RH Hly Precip 23:00 47.1 ?F / 8.4 ?C 44.6 ?F / 7.0 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NNE 3mph / 4.8km/h 6mph / 9.7km/h 91% 0.00in / 0mm 23:30 46.9 ?F / 8.3 ?C 44.7 ?F / 7.1 ?C 30.07in / 1018.2hPa NE 1mph / 1.6km/h 5mph / 8.0km/h 92% 0.00in / 0mm Current Weather at Jim's Weather Station http://users.adelphia.net/~jracey/ 11/22/04 11:31p Temp RH DewPt Wind Barometer Rain AnRain Wind Chill THW Index Heat Index 46.8?F 92% 44.6?F NNW/1.0mph 30.071 0.00 33.71in 46.8?F 47.0?F 47.0?F CWOP/APRSWXNET Raw Reports RH > 100% CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220431z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t051 CW1500>P000 h101b09925.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220501z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050P... h101b09921.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220531z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t051 CW1500>P000 h101b09922.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220601z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09919.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220631z3906.02N/07810.82W_192/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220701z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220731z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220801z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09913.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220831z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09911.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220901z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@220931z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221001z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221031z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09910.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221101z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09912.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221131z3906.02N/07810.82W_191/001g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09914.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221201z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09915.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221231z3906.02N/07810.82W_072/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09917.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221302z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t049 CW1500>P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221331z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09918.Dvs CW1500>APRS,TCPXX*,qAX,CW1500:@221401z3906.02N/07810.82W_073/000g...t050 CW1500>P000 h101b09918.Dvs -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of jimracey at adelphia.net Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:26 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] QC I've been concerned for some time about the my quality checks. (I had APRS send me a report for about a month.) I believe the greatest concern is the barometric pressure, and to a lesser degree the humidity. I have the Davis WeatherMonitor II with WeatherLink 5.4. Barometer: I have calibrated with the Winchester VA airport during periods of pressure stability. I'm only three miles away and at the same altitude. My barometer readings consistently correspond with the airport readings. Humidity: Several months ago during a humid period, my readings had gone to 103%. I calibrated back to 100% and have not experienced "bad" readings since. I believe the data that the WeatherLink is programmed to sent to APRS comes directly from the raw readings rather than the calibrated readings, thus giving APRS incorrect pressure and ocassionally incorrect humidity. (Whenever the humidity is over 100%---there goes the dew pt, heat index etc, any reading that humidity is a mathmatical component.) The information that I send to the Weather Underground and to my own web site are the calibrated readings rather than the raw readings. Is there anything you can suggest to improve the quality of the data I'm sending CWOP? Jim Racey CW1500 From jimracey at adelphia.net Fri Nov 26 12:31:02 2004 From: jimracey at adelphia.net (jimracey at adelphia.net) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:31:02 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] 5.5 Message-ID: <20041126173103.QRQY12490.mta13.adelphia.net@mail.adelphia.net> I have installed and am employing WL 5.5 and am now sending corrected/calibrated data to CWOP. Thanks to all. Jim Racey CW1500 From stanzepa at earthlink.net Sat Nov 27 10:05:56 2004 From: stanzepa at earthlink.net (Stan Horzepa) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:05:56 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] questions Message-ID: I have been receiving weather quality reports for the past week and I am not sure how to interpret the information I am receiving. Here is the first line of the latest report I received: * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) * 36(-2.4)*33.6(-6.9)* 297(17.7)*10.4(-3.5) I assume the first number in each column is my weather station's reading and the number in parenthesis is the observed error of the first reading. The explanation received with each quality report states, "The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' The error value is 'analysis - observed'. I.e. if your observed value is higher than the computed value, then the error will be negative." Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct interpretation? What about the positive observed error? Is my DD of 297, 17.7 degrees LOWER than the computed value. How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, is that something I should check out? And now for the one more question, how is the computed value arrived at? Is it essentially a comparison to the other nearby weather data? Thank you for any help any one can provide. Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU From philip at gladstonefamily.net Sat Nov 27 11:03:02 2004 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:03:02 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A8A536.9030903@gladstonefamily.net> Stan, Stan Horzepa wrote: >Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed >value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and >my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct >interpretation? > > This is correct. The error values are calculated for each reading that your station reports. If the error exceeds a threshold, then the record is included in the email that is sent to you. The threshold for temperature & dewpoint is 6 F and that is why this particular record was sent. >How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local >conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter >with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack >with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the >weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 >degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too >concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the >computed value, is that something I should check out? > Personally, I wouldn't bother checking anything unless you get a significant number of error readings. Also, a check of the graph may show you that there is a consistent bias in your values. This bias may be due to local conditions, or it could be a calibration error. Philip -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041127/481acc44/attachment.bin From lcerney at viawest.net Sat Nov 27 11:51:02 2004 From: lcerney at viawest.net (Larry Cerney) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:51:02 -0700 Subject: [wxqc] questions In-Reply-To: <41A8A536.9030903@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <200411271651.iARGp3BU004816@spring.viawest.net> Philip, I, too, receive QA reports on my WX data. First question is do the reports only show reports that are considered in error? If so, it appears all my daily reports are erroneous. In particular, I have been adjusting my baro to coincide with the reports from the local airports at: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/den/awebshtml/webpres.shtml and have been pretty successful in doing so based on the regression analysis from MesoWest at: http://www.met.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/regress_database.cgi?stn=AP190 A couple of question regarding pressure readings. First, I calibrate my barometer to give reading of altimeter pressure as opposed to sea level pressure. Is that correct? Second, I think I understand how your QA works by comparing my reading with 5 nearby stations. How effective is the QA if the stations around me have their stations reporting sea level pressures or are generally incorrect? Please explain the difference, if any, between what I have been using to QA my reports, MesoWest, with the QA reports I receive from you. I want to get it right and right now I'm not sure which to believe as they are so different. Reminds me of the old Chinese proverb "A man with one watch always knows what time it is. A man with two is never quite sure." Thanks Larry K0ANI AP190 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." --Albert Einstein -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Philip Gladstone Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:03 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: Re: [wxqc] questions Stan, Stan Horzepa wrote: >Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed >value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and >my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct >interpretation? > > This is correct. The error values are calculated for each reading that your station reports. If the error exceeds a threshold, then the record is included in the email that is sent to you. The threshold for temperature & dewpoint is 6 F and that is why this particular record was sent. >How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local >conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter >with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack >with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the >weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 >degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too >concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the >computed value, is that something I should check out? > Personally, I wouldn't bother checking anything unless you get a significant number of error readings. Also, a check of the graph may show you that there is a consistent bias in your values. This bias may be due to local conditions, or it could be a calibration error. Philip -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Nov 27 12:00:21 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:00:21 +0000 Subject: [wxqc] questions Message-ID: <112720041700.16597.41A8B2A4000E9F02000040D522007348409C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Stan, I would not be concened with hourly QC stats, you have to look at the longer term trends. I looked at your recent 24 hour QCMS graphs (AP555, WA1LOU-15): http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=AP555 1. Pressure: Your observed data seems to have a 1 mb (00.03 inch) low bias, which indicated a positive adjustment of +00.03 inch (INS) increase. Your goal should be +/- 00.03 inch of the analysis. 2. Temperature: In general, your temperature looks good. There could be an issue with your temps running a bit warm during maximum heating which <> indication a shielding issue. Your goal should be +/- 1.0F of the analysis; but +/- 3.0F is good given the local influences that your refer to. The thing to avoid is solar comtamination of the temperature sensor. 3. Dew Point: Its pretty clear your dew point reports are consistently running too hot by +5 to +7F. Home weather station sensors are typically challenged in their measurements of humidity so you are not alone. I have the same problem with my Peet Bros hygristor (dew point) sensor and adjusted the values by 3F using a potentiometer/set screw located on the temp/dew point board using Peet's instructions. See the picture at the bottom of this page: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/tanterra_sensors.htm If you can adjust your dew point, do it during a well mixed (moderate winds) a day or two after a cold front passage before the return flow develops and use the larger ASOS (not AWOS) dew points as a basis for comparison. The goal should be to get within +/- 2F of the analysis, but +/- 4F is reasonable. The good thing about your dew points is that they are consistent and someone using the data can generally correct the bias. 4. Wind Direction and Speed: Very tough to assess "correctness" of winds for personal weather stations as they are usually in the suburban tree canopy and the anemometers are at various non-standard heights above ground level. Your setup seems to be better than most at measuring winds without influence of the urban canopy. Looking at the weekly and monthly QCMS data, you don't have any "flagged" events over the long term. The thing to do is watch your local ASOS stations: KHVN (New Haven), KOXC (Oxford), and KHFD (Hartford) during a moderate winds in the afternoon when there are no radiation inversions in your area. It may be the case that your wind direction is off by 20 degres (need to add +20 degrees) as compared to the environmental story, but I really can't say without watching it for a length of time during a wind event. The analysis field is largely based on an optimal interpolation of your neighbor's observations. See here: http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_descrip.html Hope this helps, Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message -------------- > I have been receiving weather quality reports for the past week and I am not > sure how to interpret the information I am receiving. Here is the first line > of the latest report I received: > > * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > * 36(-2.4)*33.6(-6.9)* 297(17.7)*10.4(-3.5) > > I assume the first number in each column is my weather station's reading and > the number in parenthesis is the observed error of the first reading. > > The explanation received with each quality report states, "The values > displayed are 'Observed (error)' The error value is 'analysis - observed'. > I.e. if your observed value is higher than the computed value, then the > error will be negative." > > Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed > value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, and > my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a correct > interpretation? > > What about the positive observed error? Is my DD of 297, 17.7 degrees LOWER > than the computed value. > > How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local > conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter > with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack > with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the > weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 > degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be too > concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the > computed value, is that something I should check out? > > And now for the one more question, how is the computed value arrived at? Is > it essentially a comparison to the other nearby weather data? > > Thank you for any help any one can provide. > > Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU > > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041127/64d4965d/attachment-0002.html From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Nov 27 12:19:58 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:19:58 +0000 Subject: [wxqc] questions - pressure Message-ID: <112720041719.1095.41A8B73E00011BBD0000044722007621949C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Larry, We want people to send altimeter pressure values to CWOP (corrected for elevation above sea level, but not virtual temperature). Using altimeter pressure values allow people to directly compare their pressure with near-by ASOS altimeter reports (XX.XXINS) without knowing exactly what your elevation is. I believe the QCMS method of using your neighbor's pressure values can result in some problems as they could have pressure problems too. Thus, I wouldn't get too excited about small QCMS derived pressure (altimeter) has a small bias. I believe you are on the right track by using local ASOS altimeter pressure values to adjust your station's pressure. When making pressure adjustments, compare several pressure readings, with the same observation times, during nearly uniform high pressure and light winds (low pressure gradients). Avoid doing comparisons with area ASOS altimeter pressures values during moderate wind events and near thunderstorms. Hope this helps, Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message -------------- > Philip, > > I, too, receive QA reports on my WX data. First question is do the reports > only show reports that are considered in error? If so, it appears all my > daily reports are erroneous. > > In particular, I have been adjusting my baro to coincide with the reports > from the local airports at: > http://www.crh.noaa.gov/den/awebshtml/webpres.shtml > and have been pretty successful in doing so based on the regression analysis > from MesoWest at: > http://www.met.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/regress_database.cgi?stn=AP190 > > A couple of question regarding pressure readings. First, I calibrate my > barometer to give reading of altimeter pressure as opposed to sea level > pressure. Is that correct? Second, I think I understand how your QA works > by comparing my reading with 5 nearby stations. How effective is the QA if > the stations around me have their stations reporting sea level pressures or > are generally incorrect? > > Please explain the difference, if any, between what I have been using to QA > my reports, MesoWest, with the QA reports I receive from you. > > I want to get it right and right now I'm not sure which to believe as they > are so different. Reminds me of the old Chinese proverb "A man with one > watch always knows what time it is. A man with two is never quite sure." > > Thanks > Larry > K0ANI > AP190 > > "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > --Albert Einstein > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Philip > Gladstone > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:03 AM > To: Discussion of data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] questions > > Stan, > > Stan Horzepa wrote: > > >Accordingly, my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 degrees higher than the computed > >value, my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the computed value, > and > >my FF of 10.4 is 3.5 knots higher than the computer value. Is that a > correct > >interpretation? > > > > > This is correct. > > The error values are calculated for each reading that your station > reports. If the error exceeds a threshold, then the record is included > in the email that is sent to you. > > The threshold for temperature & dewpoint is 6 F and that is why this > particular record was sent. > > >How big a computed error should one be concerned with? I imagine local > >conditions play some part in causing a local reading to be out of kilter > >with the computed value, but when is a local reading so far out of whack > >with the computed value that it indicates that something is wrong with the > >weather station equipment. My guess is that if my POT TEMP of 36 is 2.4 > >degrees higher than the computed value, then that is not something to be > too > >concerned about, but if my DEW PNT of 33.6 is 6.9 degrees higher than the > >computed value, is that something I should check out? > > > Personally, I wouldn't bother checking anything unless you get a > significant number of error readings. Also, a check of the graph may > show you that there is a consistent bias in your values. This bias may > be due to local conditions, or it could be a calibration error. > > Philip > > -- > Philip Gladstone > * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041127/d20a2148/attachment-0002.html From sam at wa4phy.net Sat Nov 27 21:47:54 2004 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:47:54 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] While on the subject.... Message-ID: I noticed a few changes here and there of late, and I'm glad to see them. Makes looking at the graphs much simpler now. On the graph page, I see several of the ASOS stations in my neck of the woods, namely KAGS, KDNL, KCAE, etc. Looking at the graphs for them, compared to my station, I see some discrepancies in the observed values vs. their respective values, in that lines are generally very smooth. When looking at my own readings vs. the observed values, most graphs are either very "stepped" or ragged. Philip, or Dave, can you give an interpretation as to why some are smooth and others are stepped? Is this perhaps due to the number of readings being sent from the ASOS stations at hourly intervals vs. 5 mins (or 15) from CWOP stations? One last questions.... do the various ASOS / WFO's WSO's receive the mailings as we do when values are out of kilter or is that up to the individual stations. Seems logical now that they would not, but........ --- Snowman From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Nov 27 22:36:25 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms at comcast.net) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:36:25 +0000 Subject: [wxqc] While on the subject.... stair steps? Message-ID: <112820040336.27083.41A947B90002ECB4000069CB22058860149C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Sam, Stepped vs. Smooth: Mike Barth at FSL explained this last week (my assumptions were not exactly correct). Yes, the stepped QC is influenced by the reporting interval and you are correct about the ASOS data availability is hourly although AWOS stations (smaller unmanned non-FAA and non-NWS stations) report every 20 minutes. Becauses the mix of stations varies depending on the set of "buddy" stations in the pool, the optimal interpolation (IO) analysis is stair stepped. For the ASOS, the mix of stations is constant so the IO appears more smooth. FSL designed QCMS for the operational workstations used by the NWS meteorologists, AWIPS. QCMS statistics are integrated into AWIPS and available to the NWS Weather Forecast Office (WFO) meteorologists. Individual WFOs can and generally do subscribe to the FSL MADIS mesonet database which include CWOP/APRSWXNET weather reports. The weather reports and the QC statistics come with the raw observations. See ya, Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message -------------- > I noticed a few changes here and there of late, and I'm glad to see > them. Makes looking at the graphs much simpler now. > > On the graph page, I see several of the ASOS stations in my neck of the > woods, namely KAGS, KDNL, KCAE, etc. Looking at the graphs for them, > compared to my station, I see some discrepancies in the observed values > vs. their respective values, in that lines are generally very smooth. > When looking at my own readings vs. the observed values, most graphs are > either very "stepped" or ragged. Philip, or Dave, can you give an > interpretation as to why some are smooth and others are stepped? Is > this perhaps due to the number of readings being sent from the ASOS > stations at hourly intervals vs. 5 mins (or 15) from CWOP stations? One > last questions.... do the various ASOS / WFO's WSO's receive the > mailings as we do when values are out of kilter or is that up to the > individual stations. Seems logical now that they would not, but........ > > --- > Snowman > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041128/20925c29/attachment-0002.html From philip at gladstonefamily.net Sun Nov 28 09:22:38 2004 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:22:38 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 In-Reply-To: <41A88F17.14659.73158B@localhost> References: <41A3A767.26434.74F2D9B@localhost> <41A88F17.14659.73158B@localhost> Message-ID: <41A9DF2E.5040003@gladstonefamily.net> Arthur, It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is reporting correctly? Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting stations, and 1400 not reporting. Philip Arthur Cadoret wrote: >Philip, >Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North >Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as >Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. > >Arthur > >On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: > >Arthur, > >It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it >is reporting correctly (or at all). > >The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported >data within the last week. > >Philip > >Arthur Cadoret wrote: > > >>Philip, >> >>I am asking this just out of curiosity. >>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket >>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic >>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is whether >>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or >>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all I >>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that >>relate to it. >> >>Regards, >>Arthur Cadoret >>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI >>cumulus at att.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20041128/569f5f58/attachment.bin From dshelms at comcast.net Mon Nov 29 00:51:41 2004 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:51:41 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 In-Reply-To: <41A9DF2E.5040003@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: All: NWS and FAA combined own and operate 880 ASOS (550 FAA, 330 NWS). All other stations are AWOS operated by regional and state aviation authorities. AWOS station data are disseminated in a variety of ways (many have an autometed transmit times of every 20 minutes). Philip appears to have access to the FAA and NWS ASOS, but not others. Dave CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Philip Gladstone Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 9:23 AM To: Arthur Cadoret; Discussion of data quality issues Subject: [wxqc] Re: Question from CW1732 Arthur, It really does appear that no data is being seen from KSFZ. I just searched the raw data that I pull from the FSL, and there is no data for KSFZ (in MSAS/qcms_data/qc5/*). What makes you think that it is reporting correctly? Actually, now I look, I wonder if qc5 is the right subdirectory to use (it appears to be the ASOS stations). I only see 850 Kxxx reporting stations, and 1400 not reporting. Philip Arthur Cadoret wrote: >Philip, >Yes KSFZ reports regularly three times per hour. It is located at North >Central State Airport, Smithfield, Rhode Island, but is often identified as >Pawtucket RI Automated Reporting Station. > >Arthur > >On 24 Nov 2004 at 9:41, Philip Gladstone wrote: > >Arthur, > >It turns out that I have never seen any data from KSFZ. I wonder if it >is reporting correctly (or at all). > >The list of sites that I show are the nearby ones that have reported >data within the last week. > >Philip > >Arthur Cadoret wrote: > > >>Philip, >> >>I am asking this just out of curiosity. >>When I display the NEARBY SITES list around my station (CW1732 Woonsocket >>Oak Grove) I note that KSFZ is not among the places listed. KSFZ automatic >>observation site is only 4.5 miles from my location. My question is whether >>or not it is not included in the stations close to me for some reason, or >>was it just overlooked? As I say, just curious, as I am eager to learn all I >>can about the whole setup regarding Citizen Weather and the web pages that >>relate to it. >> >>Regards, >>Arthur Cadoret >>Woonsocket Oak Grove RI >>cumulus at att.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > -- Philip Gladstone * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net From mchalkley at benesyst.com Mon Nov 29 08:43:18 2004 From: mchalkley at benesyst.com (Mark A. Chalkley) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:43:18 -0500 Subje