From dshelms at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 00:18:58 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Fri Apr 1 00:19:11 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: <000d01c5366a$19135da0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Message-ID: MessageYep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401&site=C3 321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/0a39be19/attachment.html From bweybrecht at bellsouth.net Fri Apr 1 07:13:37 2005 From: bweybrecht at bellsouth.net (Bob) Date: Fri Apr 1 07:13:51 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002301c536b4$3bb0c1a0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Here's the data on the sensor. http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/009012_2. pdf -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:19 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Yep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401 &site=C3321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/54ebe15b/attachment-0001.html From dshelms at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 07:26:57 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Fri Apr 1 07:27:33 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: <002301c536b4$3bb0c1a0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Message-ID: MessageI want one. Them sell 'em at Walmart? Maybe Honeywell got those stats in their test chamber for the sensor, but in your backyard YMMV. -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:14 AM To: 'Discussion of data quality issues' Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Here's the data on the sensor. http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/009012_2.pdf -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:19 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Yep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401&site=C3 321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/f238d67b/attachment.html From bweybrecht at bellsouth.net Fri Apr 1 18:10:45 2005 From: bweybrecht at bellsouth.net (Bob) Date: Fri Apr 1 18:11:01 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c53710$08e7f1b0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Actually, that's what's in the AAG humidity sensor. Supposedly, it's also used for medical applications http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/technical /faq_hummoisture.stm . What I've done is taken a piece of 2 inch white PVC. On the upper end, there's a 2 to 3 inch adapter with a 12 volt fan siliconed into the opening. There's two 90 degree bends, the other end of which attaches to about a foot of 2 inch pipe - think candy cane with a fan on the short end. The humidity, and pressure sensors are in this pipe. This whole assembly responds very quickly to temp and humidity changes - http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=cw3321 &last=6, and seems immune to direct sun. -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:27 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH I want one. Them sell 'em at Walmart? Maybe Honeywell got those stats in their test chamber for the sensor, but in your backyard YMMV. -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:14 AM To: 'Discussion of data quality issues' Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Here's the data on the sensor. http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/009012_2. pdf -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:19 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Yep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401 &site=C3321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/36767bb5/attachment.html From alan at batie.org Mon Apr 4 22:39:06 2005 From: alan at batie.org (Alan Batie) Date: Mon Apr 4 22:39:20 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> References: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> Weather Quality wrote: > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 > > Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' > The error value is 'analysis - observed'. Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor "xxx - yyy" (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a format). If I remember right, what this is really saying is that there was 1 error out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to replace that first paragraph: Explanation: Date: Date of the report. UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the observation. See below if the value is a word instead of a time - these entries are special entries with summary information. Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. Alt: Barometer data in millibars. Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, 180=South, 270=West) FF: Wind speed in knots For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated error value is computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error value will be negative. If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a summary report: Smry: statistical summary for the day Week: statistical summary for the week Mnth: statistical summary for the month In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard Deviation)" over the specified period. Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the count of errors for the specified summary period. Graphs: ... Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the site value, fwiw.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3196 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050404/6afe8780/smime.bin From bweybrecht at bellsouth.net Mon Apr 4 23:48:33 2005 From: bweybrecht at bellsouth.net (Bob) Date: Mon Apr 4 23:48:42 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Effect of Seabreeze on WX Quality Message-ID: <000601c53992$57514700$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> I noticed a major jump down in temperature, and up in dew point this afternoon. I looked at the radar, and saw something I'd seen before, but didn't know what it was. A call to KILM told me it's a phenomenon known as seabreeze. The meteorologist was surprised I was able to track the temp. drop / dewpoint spike so quickly (I'm using a fan ventilated tube.Of course, I fail QC for that interval 'cause no-one else tracked the 10 degree change so rapidly. What we're talking about is the thin red line bowing to the Northwest. They had the radar in clear air mode with the gain cranked at the time. My location is a little to the West of the + sign for Wilmington. This crossed my area at about 18:40 local / 22:40 utc. Wind jumped to the south. Barometer unaffected. More useless trivia... In case you've not noticed it on Radar before, the spike heading off to the west is RF noise from the sun setting. http://n2qew.dyndns.org/WxData/KILM%20Nexrad.PNG http://n2qew.dyndns.org/WxData/Seabreeze.PNG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050404/e37039a7/attachment.html From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Apr 5 01:37:25 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue Apr 5 01:37:28 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report terms explained In-Reply-To: <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> Message-ID: Hopefully the formatting of this email will come through, if not set to Courier Font: Explanation of the QCMS Message DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 03-APR-2005 2333 CW3462 *1012.(0.2)* 64( 1.8) *30.2( -6)* 0(-55.)* 0(2.07) 03-APR-2005 Smry CW3462 * -0.2(0.6)*-0.6(1.79) *-3.7(1.84)*6.46(84.5)*-1.4(1.11) 03-APR-2005 Week CW3462 *0.95(0.75)* 0.94(1.88)*-1 (2.28)*-5.6(78.6)*0.98(1.62) You should probably just look at second and third rows, the "Smry" (summary) and "Week" (7 days average) rows. The acronyms at the top: 1. ALT = Altimeter, station pressure reduced to sea level so you can compare your pressure with other stations not at the same elevation, pressure is shown in millibars (MB) format. Week: 0.95(0.75), adding +0.95 millibar (+00.03 inches of mercury) to your mean observation is needed to have exactly the mean (altimeter) pressure indicated by the analysis. The (0.75) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean pressure, + or minus 0.75 millibars. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 2. POT TEMP = Potential Temperature;this is your temperature, also reduced to sea level. That is, if you filled a balloon at your house with "ambient" air and drove as fast as you could to the beach, and then stuck a temperature sensor in the balloon (now deflated somewhat), you would measure the potential temperature. As you descend elevation, temperatures increase due to increasing pressure (why the balloon appears to deflate). The rule is dry air cools 5.4F degrees every 1,000 feet you descend. So, if your temperature is 60.6F at your location, the (potential) temperature at the beach will be 65.0F (nice that you are at exactly 1,000 feet elevation!). Week: 0.94(1.88), adding +0.94 F degrees from your average temperature will make your average (potential) temperature the same as the surrounding temperatures. The (1.88) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean temperature, + or minus 1.88 F degrees. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 3. DEW PT = Dew Point, the temperature needed to have 100% relative humidity Week: -1.0 (2.28), subtracting 1.0 F degrees from your average dew point temperature will make your average dew point temperature the same as the surrounding average dew point temperatures. The (2.28) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean temperature, + or minus 2.28 F degrees. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 4. DD = Wind Direction, in 360 degrees Week: -5.6(78.6), subtracting 5.6 F degrees from your average wind direction will make your average wind direction the same as the surrounding average wind direction. The (78.6) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean temperature, + or minus 78.6 F degrees. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 5. FF = Wind Speed, in nautical miles per hour (KTS), 1.00 KTS = 1.15 mph Week: 0.98(1.62), adding +0.98 knots to your average wind speed will make your average wind speed the same as the surrounding average wind direction. The (1.62) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean wind speed, + or minus 1.62 knots. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation (the number inside the parentheses), then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Alan Batie Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 10:39 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 Weather Quality wrote: > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 > > Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' > The error value is 'analysis - observed'. Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor "xxx - yyy" (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a format). If I remember right, what this is really saying is that there was 1 error out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to replace that first paragraph: Explanation: Date: Date of the report. UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the observation. See below if the value is a word instead of a time - these entries are special entries with summary information. Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. Alt: Barometer data in millibars. Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, 180=South, 270=West) FF: Wind speed in knots For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated error value is computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error value will be negative. If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a summary report: Smry: statistical summary for the day Week: statistical summary for the week Mnth: statistical summary for the month In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard Deviation)" over the specified period. Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the count of errors for the specified summary period. Graphs: ... Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the site value, fwiw.. From philip at gladstonefamily.net Thu Apr 7 22:23:28 2005 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Thu Apr 7 22:23:36 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> References: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> Message-ID: <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> Alan, thanks for this suggestion. I'm trying to rework the emails to make them more useful. I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the formatting is (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now handle HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation that I had before. I'm looking at incorporating your text...... stay tuned Philip Alan Batie wrote: > Weather Quality wrote: > >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * >> DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * >> (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * >> * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 >> Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' >> The error value is 'analysis - observed'. > > > Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual > output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor "xxx - yyy" > (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a format). If I > remember right, what this is really saying is that there was 1 error > out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? > > Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to > replace that first paragraph: > > Explanation: > > Date: Date of the report. > UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the > observation. See below if the value is a word instead of > a time - these entries are special entries with summary > information. > Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. > Alt: Barometer data in millibars. > Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit > Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit > DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, 180=South, 270=West) > FF: Wind speed in knots > > For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of > "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated error value is > computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined > from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the > reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error value will > be negative. > > If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a summary report: > > Smry: statistical summary for the day > Week: statistical summary for the week > Mnth: statistical summary for the month > > In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard > Deviation)" over the specified period. > > Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" > If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. > If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the > count of errors for the specified summary period. > > Graphs: > ... > > Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the site value, > fwiw.. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > -- 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/20050407/9d352338/smime.bin From alan at batie.org Thu Apr 7 23:23:05 2005 From: alan at batie.org (Alan Batie) Date: Thu Apr 7 23:23:17 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> References: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <4255F919.9020308@batie.org> Philip Gladstone wrote: > I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the formatting is > (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now handle > HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation that I had before. Although I'm now using mozilla as my primary mail reader, I still prefer my mail to be mail, not a web page ;-) The only issue I have is that the description doesn't match what's in the report. I would recommend including a link in the mail, but not the entire web page... To save bandwidth, chop the description entirely from the daily reports and just include it in the weekly reports as a reminder. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3196 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050407/bb5e0e9d/smime.bin From mojito at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 23:47:36 2005 From: mojito at gmail.com (Mojito Jones) Date: Thu Apr 7 23:47:43 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <4255feda.29bb9ae3.31c8.ffff9d7b@mx.gmail.com> I'd appreciate it if you would keep the text format as a option. Html is for web pages. Text is for email messages. Personally I force all incoming messages to text to strip html from my incoming messages. As an alternative, if you need the extra room, you might consider eliminating all but the summary line and link on the email and put the error messages on the station's status page. K > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of > Philip Gladstone > Sent: 07 April 2005 22:23 > To: Discussion of data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 > > Alan, > > thanks for this suggestion. I'm trying to rework the emails > to make them > more useful. I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the > formatting is > (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now handle > HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation that > I had before. > > I'm looking at incorporating your text...... > > stay tuned > > Philip > > > > Alan Batie wrote: > > > Weather Quality wrote: > > > >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * > >> DD * FF * (MB) * > (DEG F) * > >> (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * > > >> * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 > >> Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are > 'Observed (error)' > >> The error value is 'analysis - observed'. > > > > > > Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual > > output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor > "xxx - yyy" > > (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a > format). If I > > remember right, what this is really saying is that there > was 1 error > > out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? > > > > Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to > > replace that first paragraph: > > > > Explanation: > > > > Date: Date of the report. > > UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the > > observation. See below if the value is a word instead of > > a time - these entries are special entries with summary > > information. > > Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. > > Alt: Barometer data in millibars. > > Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit > > Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit > > DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, > 180=South, 270=West) > > FF: Wind speed in knots > > > > For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of > > "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated > error value is > > computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined > > from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the > > reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error > value will > > be negative. > > > > If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a > summary report: > > > > Smry: statistical summary for the day > > Week: statistical summary for the week > > Mnth: statistical summary for the month > > > > In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard > > Deviation)" over the specified period. > > > > Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" > > If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. > > If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the > > count of errors for the specified summary period. > > > > Graphs: > > ... > > > > Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the > site value, > > fwiw.. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > > > >_______________________________________________ > >wxqc mailing list > >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > > > > > > -- > Philip Gladstone > * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net > > From flaplante at flos-inc.com Fri Apr 8 10:35:48 2005 From: flaplante at flos-inc.com (Fred LaPlante) Date: Fri Apr 8 10:36:29 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4255feda.29bb9ae3.31c8.ffff9d7b@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200548103548.597505@teak> I too do not accept html email. And I like the suggestion in the 2nd paragraph below. Lets keep the info brief but still have access to the detail if wanted. Also an explanation of the message is needed, but certainly can be maintained at a link. No need to see it all every day, just to be able to find it. Fred -- flaplante@flos-inc.com on 4/8/2005 On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:47:36 -0400, Mojito Jones wrote: > I'd appreciate it if you would keep the text format as a option. > Html is for web pages. Text is for email messages. Personally I > force all incoming messages to text to strip html from my incoming > messages. > > As an alternative, if you need the extra room, you might consider > eliminating all but the summary line and link on the email and put > the error messages on the station's status page. > > K > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >> [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of >> Philip Gladstone Sent: 07 April 2005 22:23 To: Discussion of data >> quality issues >> Subject: Re: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 >> >> Alan, >> >> thanks for this suggestion. I'm trying to rework the emails to >> make them >> more useful. I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the >> formatting is >> (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now >> handle HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation >> that I had before. >> >> I'm looking at incorporating your text...... >> >> stay tuned >> >> Philip >> >> >> Alan Batie wrote: >> >>> Weather Quality wrote: >>> >>>> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD >>>> * FF * (MB) * >>>> >> (DEG F) * >>>> (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * >>>> >>>> * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 >>>> Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are >>>> >> 'Observed (error)' >>>> The error value is 'analysis - observed'. >>>> >>> >>> Could someone fix this script so the description matches the >>> actual output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor >>> >> "xxx - yyy" >>> (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a >>> >> format). If I >>> remember right, what this is really saying is that there >>> >> was 1 error >>> out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? >>> >>> Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to >>> replace that first paragraph: >>> >>> Explanation: >>> >>> Date: Date of the report. >>> UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the >>> observation. See below if the value is a word instead of a >>> time - these entries are special entries with summary >>> information. >>> Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. Alt: >>> Barometer data in millibars. Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees >>> Fahrenheit Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit >>> DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, >>> >> 180=South, 270=West) >>> FF: Wind speed in knots >>> >>> For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of >>> "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated >>> >> error value is >>> computed by subtracting the reported value from a value >>> determined from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, >>> thus if the reported value is higher than the analysis value, >>> the error >>> >> value will >>> be negative. >>> >>> If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a >>> >> summary report: >> >>> Smry: statistical summary for the day >>> Week: statistical summary for the week >>> Mnth: statistical summary for the month >>> >>> In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard >>> Deviation)" over the specified period. >>> >>> Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports >>> received" If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date >>> listed. If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it >>> is the count of errors for the specified summary period. >>> >>> Graphs: >>> ... >>> >>> Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the >>> >> site value, >>> fwiw.. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> ----------- >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wxqc mailing list >>> wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>> http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>> >> >> -- >> 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 From hugal at ott.net Sat Apr 9 12:46:20 2005 From: hugal at ott.net (Al Huggard) Date: Sat Apr 9 12:46:08 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Bar quality graphs Message-ID: <000d01c53d23$ac0efbe0$41d2f446@al07ti2sxm71qt> To any one who can help me. On the QC graph for my station C3525, I am tracking right (above and below) on the analysis track. However on the "all stations" graph I am still about 1mb low of the target box. If I include the surrounding airports on the graph of just my station I appear to be about 1mb high as does the analysis track. Should I adjust for the target box on the "all stations" graph (increase my bar by 1mb or should I reduce my bar by .5 or l mb to more closely follow the surrounding measurements on the airport stations which I presume to be the most accurate. I am about + or - 30 miles south and southwest of the airport stations. I haven't had a calm enough wind day recently to check my local Airport although it is a very small privately operated station and for precise accuracy they might be suspect. Al From kd5hqq at eastex.net Sat Apr 16 07:18:08 2005 From: kd5hqq at eastex.net (Don Revel) Date: Sat Apr 16 07:18:38 2005 Subject: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" Message-ID: Hello everyone, My name is Don. Better known as KD5HQQ or KTXRYE1. I need some assistance with software for my Peet Bro's 2000. I have tried VWS, Weather View32, Weather Display and others. All have had serious problems of one kind or another. I like Weather Display the most but it not communicate with the station correctly. I am online with VWS till I decide what to purchase. I own Weather Outlook (excellent data logger) from Peet but it does not support any web except APRS. What else is there? Can anyone help? Thank you for your assistance. 73'S DON REVEL KD5HQQ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.8 - Release Date: 4/13/2005 From gary.oldham at adelphia.net Sat Apr 16 07:21:26 2005 From: gary.oldham at adelphia.net (Gary Oldham) Date: Sat Apr 16 07:21:35 2005 Subject: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4260F536.7010008@adelphia.net> I think you've about tried them all, Don. The Peet uses a somewhat different communications protocol than most weather stations, and I know it gives software developers a big headache. Andy Weir's program FreeWX has a good reputation, but I can't remember if it supports the Peet, it may just do the Oregon Scientific series, but you may want to check that out. Gary Oldham N6SKK/CW0146 www.ag-weather.com Don Revel wrote: >Hello everyone, > My name is Don. Better known as KD5HQQ or KTXRYE1. I need some assistance >with software for my Peet Bro's 2000. I have tried VWS, Weather View32, >Weather Display and others. All have had serious problems of one kind or >another. I like Weather Display the most but it not communicate with the >station correctly. I am online with VWS till I decide what to purchase. I >own Weather Outlook (excellent data logger) from Peet but it does not >support any web except APRS. What else is there? Can anyone help? Thank you >for your assistance. > >73'S >DON REVEL >KD5HQQ > > > > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005 From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Apr 16 12:12:55 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sat Apr 16 12:12:54 2005 Subject: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" In-Reply-To: <4260F536.7010008@adelphia.net> References: <4260F536.7010008@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <42613987.7080104@comcast.net> Hi Don, If you want to create a weather web page and upload to CWOP and WeatherUnderground, the choice is either VWS or WeatherDisplay (WeatherView32 does not support CWOP) for the Peet Bros weather station. WeatherDisplay does fully support the Peet protocol (I have the a Peet Ultimeter 2000/2100 and WeatherDisplay) so I suspect you do not have the communications parameters or station type not configured. Another issue might be you are attempting to run more than one software data logger with a single COM port feed which is not possible. Send me an email directly to dshelms@comcast.net and I will get you on-line with WeatherDisplay so you can make a better final decision. Dave CW0351 P.S. You might want to check out the cwop.info as it lists all the weather station and software data logger combinations that support CWOP; FreeWx supports the RadioShack and Oregon Scientific weather stations only. Gary Oldham wrote: > I think you've about tried them all, Don. The Peet uses a somewhat > different communications protocol than most weather stations, and I > know it gives software developers a big headache. Andy Weir's program > FreeWX has a good reputation, but I can't remember if it supports the > Peet, it may just do the Oregon Scientific series, but you may want to > check that out. > > Gary Oldham > N6SKK/CW0146 > www.ag-weather.com > > Don Revel wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> My name is Don. Better known as KD5HQQ or KTXRYE1. I need some >> assistance >> with software for my Peet Bro's 2000. I have tried VWS, Weather View32, >> Weather Display and others. All have had serious problems of one kind or >> another. I like Weather Display the most but it not communicate with the >> station correctly. I am online with VWS till I decide what to >> purchase. I >> own Weather Outlook (excellent data logger) from Peet but it does not >> support any web except APRS. What else is there? Can anyone help? >> Thank you >> for your assistance. >> >> 73'S >> DON REVEL >> KD5HQQ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > From harold.lemon at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 16 16:41:04 2005 From: harold.lemon at sbcglobal.net (Harold Lemon) Date: Sat Apr 16 16:41:16 2005 Subject: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" References: <4260F536.7010008@adelphia.net> <42613987.7080104@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001a01c542c4$9d66a420$6402a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Don, Just to let you know. I have the same setup as Dave, using the Ultimeter 2100 and Weather Display combo. I am reporting to wunderground.com and CWOP and it has been working fine for me. Harold CW3109 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Helms" To: ; "Discussion of data quality issues" Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" Hi Don, If you want to create a weather web page and upload to CWOP and WeatherUnderground, the choice is either VWS or WeatherDisplay (WeatherView32 does not support CWOP) for the Peet Bros weather station. WeatherDisplay does fully support the Peet protocol (I have the a Peet Ultimeter 2000/2100 and WeatherDisplay) so I suspect you do not have the communications parameters or station type not configured. Another issue might be you are attempting to run more than one software data logger with a single COM port feed which is not possible. Send me an email directly to dshelms@comcast.net and I will get you on-line with WeatherDisplay so you can make a better final decision. Dave CW0351 P.S. You might want to check out the cwop.info as it lists all the weather station and software data logger combinations that support CWOP; FreeWx supports the RadioShack and Oregon Scientific weather stations only. Gary Oldham wrote: > I think you've about tried them all, Don. The Peet uses a somewhat > different communications protocol than most weather stations, and I > know it gives software developers a big headache. Andy Weir's program > FreeWX has a good reputation, but I can't remember if it supports the > Peet, it may just do the Oregon Scientific series, but you may want to > check that out. > > Gary Oldham > N6SKK/CW0146 > www.ag-weather.com > > Don Revel wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> My name is Don. Better known as KD5HQQ or KTXRYE1. I need some >> assistance >> with software for my Peet Bro's 2000. I have tried VWS, Weather View32, >> Weather Display and others. All have had serious problems of one kind or >> another. I like Weather Display the most but it not communicate with the >> station correctly. I am online with VWS till I decide what to >> purchase. I >> own Weather Outlook (excellent data logger) from Peet but it does not >> support any web except APRS. What else is there? Can anyone help? >> Thank you >> for your assistance. >> >> 73'S >> DON REVEL >> KD5HQQ >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From sam at wa4phy.net Sat Apr 16 23:09:41 2005 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Sat Apr 16 23:09:50 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Software DP calculations Message-ID: <4261D375.7080909@wa4phy.net> I'd like to know for sure the DP calculations being done by the various wx software packages is correct. I'd think it would be, but perhaps somehow something gets trashed a little causing wild fluctuations in outputted dewpoints. Given the fact that some flakey data can throw off the analysis for a "cluster" of stations, does the QC not have a feature or function that looks at all the peer stations and throw out the "offending" one? Is it in fact working? Maybe I am paranoid a bit about minor things, but if I'm going to send wx data, I want to know what I send is of the highest accuracy that can be had from a "consumer grade" wx station. Watching the trends via Phill's graphs, it appears that my DP is going from bad to worse, and daily abberations are increasing. (Dave/Sandy, can you peek at what I've been producing and tell me if I need to look for some problem, or is there some ragged data causing the increasing Std Dev's ?) If I recall, Dave mentioned something to the effect that software chnages were forthcoming in the WXQC to better handle flakey station data. Any timeframe for implementation? -- Snowman From dshelms at comcast.net Sun Apr 17 01:11:48 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sun Apr 17 01:11:52 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Software DP calculations In-Reply-To: <4261D375.7080909@wa4phy.net> References: <4261D375.7080909@wa4phy.net> Message-ID: <4261F014.2060709@comcast.net> Hi Sam, Dew point/humidity (humidity is what is sent to CWOP in the APRS message) is one of the more "noisy" parameters reported by CWOP members. QCMS uses the surrounding 8 stations for the analysis calculations, which stations getting into the mix depends on who is reporting in the time interval of the sample, which will vary (as Philip says, this can be the cause of the "jaggies"). The analysis assumes most of the stations are generally functioning well. If several stations have bad reports all in the same direction, then the analysis will be negatively impacted. The best way to test if you are producing good data is to monitor a nearby ASOS station, like KAGS in your area, overlayed on Philips daily QC graphs. Here is the 2 week mean error and standard deviation plot of your station (*) against other CWOP stations: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqual.pl?site=AR471 For dew point, it appears you may be 1F-2F too high on the dew point measurements. This is only slightly out of the target accuracy "box" Philip has placed on the graphs (you want to be inside the boxes). I would use the 2 week mean over daily graphs to draw conclusions about sensor performance as the daily info can be pretty choppy. My assessment of your data is that it is pretty good right now and I wouldn't suggest any action on your part. I don't think the folks at Forecast Systems Lab are going to make any significant changes to the QCMS program as they are very busy expanding the station database to include additional State Road Weather networks. Mike can respond if I am off-base on this call. What type of weather station do you have? I think it is a Davis VP, but I can't remember right now. Dave CW0351 Sam Drinkard wrote: > I'd like to know for sure the DP calculations being done by the > various wx software packages is correct. I'd think it would be, but > perhaps somehow something gets trashed a little causing wild > fluctuations in outputted dewpoints. Given the fact that some flakey > data can throw off the analysis for a "cluster" of stations, does the > QC not have a feature or function that looks at all the peer stations > and throw out the "offending" one? Is it in fact working? Maybe I am > paranoid a bit about minor things, but if I'm going to send wx data, I > want to know what I send is of the highest accuracy that can be had > from a "consumer grade" wx station. Watching the trends via Phill's > graphs, it appears that my DP is going from bad to worse, and daily > abberations are increasing. (Dave/Sandy, can you peek at what I've > been producing and tell me if I need to look for some problem, or is > there some ragged data causing the increasing Std Dev's ?) If I > recall, Dave mentioned something to the effect that software chnages > were forthcoming in the WXQC to better handle flakey station data. > Any timeframe for implementation? > From tbarstow at earthlink.net Sun Apr 17 22:28:26 2005 From: tbarstow at earthlink.net (Tom Barstow) Date: Sun Apr 17 22:28:07 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check warning Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222435.01e7d628@mail.earthlink.net> Any one can tell me what's wrong with my Weather Reports. I get these all the time. I look at the KECG and KCPK reading and they look real close to mine. A lot of time we run the same temp, wind direction, wind speed etc. Not sure what's up with this. >Date: 18 Apr 2005 01:07:36 -0000 >From: Weather Quality >To: tbarstow@earthlink.net >Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check warning >User-agent: Automated weather quality control sender: >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net >X-ELNK-AV: 0 > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT > * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) > * (DEG) * (KNT) >17-APR-2005 Errs CW2967 >* 0/88 * 0/88 * 3/88 * 0/88 * 0/88 >17-APR-2005 Week CW2967 >*0.25(0.28)*0.35(2.34)*1.17(3.15)*-23.(45.9)*2.67(2.78) > >Note that times are in UTC. 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. You have to pick out >the reading that is in error. The row with the time of 'Smry' is a daily >summary >and the data is 'mean(standard deviation)' for each observation during >that day. >The 'Week' row is the summary for the preceding 7 days. > >WARNING: The location for CW2967 was entered as latitude 36.4858, >longitude -76.0753. However, the location that is reported via APRS is >latitude 36.4542, longitude -76.0808. This difference is around 2.2 >miles. Please check to see which is correct, and either adjust your >software or your registered location by sending email to >. Check your information at >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxsite.pl?site=C2967 From dshelms at comcast.net Sun Apr 17 23:16:46 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sun Apr 17 23:16:50 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check warning In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222435.01e7d628@mail.earthlink.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222435.01e7d628@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4263269E.3090507@comcast.net> Tom, This is a statistical summary of your weather station's reports which is a service provided by this listserver. The summary shows exactly what you already know, your data tracks well with the professional weather stations. Of the 88 reports evaluated, not "questionable" observations were found for your pressure (ALT), temperature (POT TEMP), wind direction (DD), and wind speed (FF). A small number of dew point (DEW PNT) reports, 3 of 88, were flagged. This doesn't mean the 3 dew point reports were wrong, just that they were different from what was expected. The warning message at the bottom of the message was generated because your weather station's location in the CWOP database is different from the location you are reporting in your current APRS reports. 1. CWOP database location: http://www.wxqa.com/states/NC.html Latitude: 36.48583N Longitude: 76.07533W 2. Position currently in your APRS weather reports: http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?call=CW2967 http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=36.45417&lon=-76.08083&s=100&size=s Latitude: 36.45417N Longitude: 76.08083W I recall we had determined the position in the APRS message is the most accurate position, but this position apparently didn't get updated in the CWOP database. If this is true, Julie and Russ will update your CWOP station data with the #2 position listed above. Regards, Dave CW0351 Tom Barstow wrote: > Any one can tell me what's wrong with my Weather Reports. I get these > all the time. I look at the KECG and KCPK reading and they look real > close to mine. A lot of time we run the same temp, wind direction, > wind speed etc. Not sure what's up with this. > > >> Date: 18 Apr 2005 01:07:36 -0000 >> From: Weather Quality >> To: tbarstow@earthlink.net >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check >> warning >> User-agent: Automated weather quality control sender: >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net >> X-ELNK-AV: 0 >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * >> DD * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * >> (DEG) * (KNT) >> 17-APR-2005 Errs CW2967 * 0/88 * 0/88 * 3/88 * >> 0/88 * 0/88 >> 17-APR-2005 Week CW2967 >> *0.25(0.28)*0.35(2.34)*1.17(3.15)*-23.(45.9)*2.67(2.78) >> >> Note that times are in UTC. 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. You have to >> pick out >> the reading that is in error. The row with the time of 'Smry' is a >> daily summary >> and the data is 'mean(standard deviation)' for each observation >> during that day. >> The 'Week' row is the summary for the preceding 7 days. >> >> WARNING: The location for CW2967 was entered as latitude 36.4858, >> longitude -76.0753. However, the location that is reported via APRS is >> latitude 36.4542, longitude -76.0808. This difference is around 2.2 >> miles. Please check to see which is correct, and either adjust your >> software or your registered location by sending email to >> . Check your information at >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxsite.pl?site=C2967 > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From philip at gladstonefamily.net Sun Apr 17 23:20:10 2005 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sun Apr 17 23:20:18 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check warning In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222435.01e7d628@mail.earthlink.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222435.01e7d628@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4263276A.6030402@gladstonefamily.net> Tom, Your numbers look good -- the dew point is a little off, but I wouldn't worry about it. However, there is a difference between your registered location (when you signed up with CWOP) and the locatin that you report with each weather message. You can see both at: http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/CW2967 My personal guess is that the registered location is incorrect, and the APRS location (what you entered into your weather station software) is correct. You can also see that you have a temperature shielding problem (like many of us!) -- check the temperature graph shown in that page -- in particular, compare the daytime and nighttime portions of it. Philip Tom Barstow wrote: > Any one can tell me what's wrong with my Weather Reports. I get these > all the time. I look at the KECG and KCPK reading and they look real > close to mine. A lot of time we run the same temp, wind direction, > wind speed etc. Not sure what's up with this. > > >> Date: 18 Apr 2005 01:07:36 -0000 >> From: Weather Quality >> To: tbarstow@earthlink.net >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check >> warning >> User-agent: Automated weather quality control sender: >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net >> X-ELNK-AV: 0 >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * >> DD * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * >> (DEG) * (KNT) >> 17-APR-2005 Errs CW2967 * 0/88 * 0/88 * 3/88 * >> 0/88 * 0/88 >> 17-APR-2005 Week CW2967 >> *0.25(0.28)*0.35(2.34)*1.17(3.15)*-23.(45.9)*2.67(2.78) >> >> Note that times are in UTC. 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. You have to >> pick out >> the reading that is in error. The row with the time of 'Smry' is a >> daily summary >> and the data is 'mean(standard deviation)' for each observation >> during that day. >> The 'Week' row is the summary for the preceding 7 days. >> >> WARNING: The location for CW2967 was entered as latitude 36.4858, >> longitude -76.0753. However, the location that is reported via APRS is >> latitude 36.4542, longitude -76.0808. This difference is around 2.2 >> miles. Please check to see which is correct, and either adjust your >> software or your registered location by sending email to >> . Check your information at >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxsite.pl?site=C2967 > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > -- 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/20050417/11e9fe42/smime.bin From tbarstow at earthlink.net Mon Apr 18 12:12:19 2005 From: tbarstow at earthlink.net (Tom Barstow) Date: Mon Apr 18 12:11:41 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: wxqc Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 In-Reply-To: <200504180900.1dnyFr6UI3NZFpN0@mx-a065b14.pas.sa.earthlink. net> References: <200504180900.1dnyFr6UI3NZFpN0@mx-a065b14.pas.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050418120523.01e7adb8@mail.earthlink.net> I sent a message off over the weekend to have them change my location. When I went on the map I got it down to the top of my roof. Its amazing the map showed my house in the picture when I zoom in. My Lat: 36:27:15N Lon: 76:04:51 I think what happen is when I first sign up I went to a site they mention gave zip 27958. Once signed up I saw the map on web site and saw it was off. So I change setting and zoom into my house and the above is my exact location within a few fee. Anyhow I sent a message off over weekend as stated in report to have it changed to above. Thanks for replies it just bother me when I get these reports. I was under the understanding you only get them if there's a problem. If things look good then you don't see them. I get them all the time. Any how everyone have a nice week and better weather coming . I see it all I travel all 49 states and Canada weekly. At 12:00 PM 4/18/2005, you wrote: >Send wxqc mailing list submissions to > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wxqc-request@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >You can reach the person managing the list at > wxqc-owner@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of wxqc digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please > check warning (Tom Barstow) > 2. Re: Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please > check warning (Dave Helms) > 3. Re: Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please > check warning (Philip Gladstone) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:28:26 -0400 >From: Tom Barstow >Subject: [wxqc] Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- > please check warning >To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050417222435.01e7d628@mail.earthlink.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Any one can tell me what's wrong with my Weather Reports. I get these all >the time. I look at the KECG and KCPK reading and they look real close to >mine. A lot of time we run the same temp, wind direction, wind speed >etc. Not sure what's up with this. > > > >Date: 18 Apr 2005 01:07:36 -0000 > >From: Weather Quality > >To: tbarstow@earthlink.net > >Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check warning > >User-agent: Automated weather quality control sender: > >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net > >X-ELNK-AV: 0 > > > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT > > * DD * FF > > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) > > * (DEG) * (KNT) > >17-APR-2005 Errs CW2967 > >* 0/88 * 0/88 * 3/88 * 0/88 * 0/88 > >17-APR-2005 Week CW2967 > >*0.25(0.28)*0.35(2.34)*1.17(3.15)*-23.(45.9)*2.67(2.78) > > > >Note that times are in UTC. 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. You have to > pick out > >the reading that is in error. The row with the time of 'Smry' is a daily > >summary > >and the data is 'mean(standard deviation)' for each observation during > >that day. > >The 'Week' row is the summary for the preceding 7 days. > > > >WARNING: The location for CW2967 was entered as latitude 36.4858, > >longitude -76.0753. However, the location that is reported via APRS is > >latitude 36.4542, longitude -76.0808. This difference is around 2.2 > >miles. Please check to see which is correct, and either adjust your > >software or your registered location by sending email to > >. Check your information at > >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxsite.pl?site=C2967 > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:16:46 -0400 >From: Dave Helms >Subject: Re: [wxqc] Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- > please check warning >To: Discussion of data quality issues >Cc: Julie Singewald , Russ Chadwick > >Message-ID: <4263269E.3090507@comcast.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Tom, > >This is a statistical summary of your weather station's reports which is >a service provided by this listserver. The summary shows exactly what >you already know, your data tracks well with the professional weather >stations. Of the 88 reports evaluated, not "questionable" observations >were found for your pressure (ALT), temperature (POT TEMP), wind >direction (DD), and wind speed (FF). A small number of dew point (DEW >PNT) reports, 3 of 88, were flagged. This doesn't mean the 3 dew point >reports were wrong, just that they were different from what was expected. > >The warning message at the bottom of the message was generated because >your weather station's location in the CWOP database is different from >the location you are reporting in your current APRS reports. > >1. CWOP database location: >http://www.wxqa.com/states/NC.html >Latitude: 36.48583N >Longitude: 76.07533W > >2. Position currently in your APRS weather reports: >http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?call=CW2967 >http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=36.45417&lon=-76.08083&s=100&size=s >Latitude: 36.45417N >Longitude: 76.08083W > >I recall we had determined the position in the APRS message is the most >accurate position, but this position apparently didn't get updated in >the CWOP database. If this is true, Julie and Russ will update your >CWOP station data with the #2 position listed above. > >Regards, > >Dave >CW0351 > > >Tom Barstow wrote: > > > Any one can tell me what's wrong with my Weather Reports. I get these > > all the time. I look at the KECG and KCPK reading and they look real > > close to mine. A lot of time we run the same temp, wind direction, > > wind speed etc. Not sure what's up with this. > > > > > >> Date: 18 Apr 2005 01:07:36 -0000 > >> From: Weather Quality > >> To: tbarstow@earthlink.net > >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check > >> warning > >> User-agent: Automated weather quality control sender: > >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net > >> X-ELNK-AV: 0 > >> > >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * > >> DD * FF > >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * > >> (DEG) * (KNT) > >> 17-APR-2005 Errs CW2967 * 0/88 * 0/88 * 3/88 * > >> 0/88 * 0/88 > >> 17-APR-2005 Week CW2967 > >> *0.25(0.28)*0.35(2.34)*1.17(3.15)*-23.(45.9)*2.67(2.78) > >> > >> Note that times are in UTC. 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. You have to > >> pick out > >> the reading that is in error. The row with the time of 'Smry' is a > >> daily summary > >> and the data is 'mean(standard deviation)' for each observation > >> during that day. > >> The 'Week' row is the summary for the preceding 7 days. > >> > >> WARNING: The location for CW2967 was entered as latitude 36.4858, > >> longitude -76.0753. However, the location that is reported via APRS is > >> latitude 36.4542, longitude -76.0808. This difference is around 2.2 > >> miles. Please check to see which is correct, and either adjust your > >> software or your registered location by sending email to > >> . Check your information at > >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxsite.pl?site=C2967 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wxqc mailing list > > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:20:10 -0400 >From: Philip Gladstone >Subject: Re: [wxqc] Fwd: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- > please check warning >To: Discussion of data quality issues >Message-ID: <4263276A.6030402@gladstonefamily.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Tom, > >Your numbers look good -- the dew point is a little off, but I wouldn't >worry about it. > >However, there is a difference between your registered location (when >you signed up with CWOP) and the locatin that you report with each >weather message. > >You can see both at: > >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/CW2967 > >My personal guess is that the registered location is incorrect, and the >APRS location (what you entered into your weather station software) is >correct. > >You can also see that you have a temperature shielding problem (like >many of us!) -- check the temperature graph shown in that page -- in >particular, compare the daytime and nighttime portions of it. > >Philip > >Tom Barstow wrote: > > > Any one can tell me what's wrong with my Weather Reports. I get these > > all the time. I look at the KECG and KCPK reading and they look real > > close to mine. A lot of time we run the same temp, wind direction, > > wind speed etc. Not sure what's up with this. > > > > > >> Date: 18 Apr 2005 01:07:36 -0000 > >> From: Weather Quality > >> To: tbarstow@earthlink.net > >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-17 -- please check > >> warning > >> User-agent: Automated weather quality control sender: > >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net > >> X-ELNK-AV: 0 > >> > >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * > >> DD * FF > >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * > >> (DEG) * (KNT) > >> 17-APR-2005 Errs CW2967 * 0/88 * 0/88 * 3/88 * > >> 0/88 * 0/88 > >> 17-APR-2005 Week CW2967 > >> *0.25(0.28)*0.35(2.34)*1.17(3.15)*-23.(45.9)*2.67(2.78) > >> > >> Note that times are in UTC. 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. You have to > >> pick out > >> the reading that is in error. The row with the time of 'Smry' is a > >> daily summary > >> and the data is 'mean(standard deviation)' for each observation > >> during that day. > >> The 'Week' row is the summary for the preceding 7 days. > >> > >> WARNING: The location for CW2967 was entered as latitude 36.4858, > >> longitude -76.0753. However, the location that is reported via APRS is > >> latitude 36.4542, longitude -76.0808. This difference is around 2.2 > >> miles. Please check to see which is correct, and either adjust your > >> software or your registered location by sending email to > >> . Check your information at > >> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxsite.pl?site=C2967 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wxqc mailing list > > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > > > > > >-- >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/20050417/11e9fe42/smime-0001.bin > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > >End of wxqc Digest, Vol 6, Issue 9 >********************************** From tbarstow at earthlink.net Sun Apr 24 14:09:23 2005 From: tbarstow at earthlink.net (Tom Barstow) Date: Sun Apr 24 14:09:30 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Web Site Moved Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050424135429.01e9f470@mail.earthlink.net> Well some good news I have relocated my website to a new host. www.moyockweather.com I will have a email for the site tbarstow@moyockweather.com I like to say thank you to the people that help me put my sight together. I had no experience with html code and playing around with Java. I would like to say special thanks to: Steve Fitzgerald http://www.apexncweather.com Gary Oldham http://www.ag-weather.com/main.html They help me out a lot and kept me on the right path. Well we be off to work on Monday and will not be back for about 45 days. Again to all many thanks and take a look at site. Always looking for ideas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050424/a88a1f2b/attachment.html From sam at wa4phy.net Sun Apr 24 21:40:00 2005 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Sun Apr 24 21:40:08 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Analysis Message-ID: <426C4A70.90308@wa4phy.net> Out of curiosity, can someone tell me how the analysis graphs are generated, or which station(s) is/are used to set the standard? Doing comparisons of DNL/AGS/Me, I see quite a bit of change of the analysis when switching from my graphs over to DNL or AGS. Is the station which provides the analysis data constant, or does that particular aspect of the QC change daily. For clarification, I'm talking about the graphs that Philip's software generates. -- Snowman From dshelms at comcast.net Sun Apr 24 23:46:41 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sun Apr 24 23:46:43 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Web Site Moved In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050424135429.01e9f470@mail.earthlink.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050424135429.01e9f470@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <426C6821.9040101@comcast.net> Hey Tom, Good site but you could like to a Russ' http://www.cwop.net site and even your station's data on FINDU as well. See ya, Dave Tom Barstow wrote: > Well some good news I have relocated my website to a new host. > > www.moyockweather.com > > I will have a email for the site > tbarstow@moyockweather.com > > I like to say thank you to the people that help me put my sight > together. I had no experience with html code and playing around with > Java. > I would like to say special thanks to: > > Steve Fitzgerald http://www.apexncweather.com > Gary Oldham http://www.ag-weather.com/main.html > > They help me out a lot and kept me on the right path. > > Well we be off to work on Monday and will not be back for about 45 days. > > Again to all many thanks and take a look at site. Always looking for > ideas. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > From tbarstow at earthlink.net Mon Apr 25 12:25:12 2005 From: tbarstow at earthlink.net (Tom Barstow) Date: Mon Apr 25 12:23:49 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Re: wxqc Digest, Vol 6, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <200504250900.1dq60f5dj3NZFmR0@bunting.mail.pas.earthlink.n et> References: <200504250900.1dq60f5dj3NZFmR0@bunting.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050425122112.01ea19d0@mail.earthlink.net> I will be doing the add on to the site FINDU once I get it layed out with weather info then I can add logo's and links to those sites. I haven't forgotten my grass routes and helpers. You guys was my first contact once I got my station. At 12:00 PM 4/25/2005, you wrote: >Send wxqc mailing list submissions to > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wxqc-request@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >You can reach the person managing the list at > wxqc-owner@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of wxqc digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Web Site Moved (Tom Barstow) > 2. Analysis (Sam Drinkard) > 3. Re: Web Site Moved (Dave Helms) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:09:23 -0400 >From: Tom Barstow >Subject: [wxqc] Web Site Moved >To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050424135429.01e9f470@mail.earthlink.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Well some good news I have relocated my website to a new host. > >www.moyockweather.com > >I will have a email for the site tbarstow@moyockweather.com > >I like to say thank you to the people that help me put my sight >together. I had no experience with html code and playing around with Java. >I would like to say special thanks to: > >Steve >Fitzgerald http://www.apexncweather.com >Gary Oldham http://www.ag-weather.com/main.html > >They help me out a lot and kept me on the right path. > >Well we be off to work on Monday and will not be back for about 45 days. > >Again to all many thanks and take a look at site. Always looking for ideas. >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050424/a88a1f2b/attachment-0001.html > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:40:00 -0400 >From: Sam Drinkard >Subject: [wxqc] Analysis >To: Discussion of data quality issues >Message-ID: <426C4A70.90308@wa4phy.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Out of curiosity, can someone tell me how the analysis graphs are >generated, or which station(s) is/are used to set the standard? Doing >comparisons of DNL/AGS/Me, I see quite a bit of change of the analysis >when switching from my graphs over to DNL or AGS. Is the station which >provides the analysis data constant, or does that particular aspect of >the QC change daily. For clarification, I'm talking about the graphs >that Philip's software generates. > >-- >Snowman > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:46:41 -0400 >From: Dave Helms >Subject: Re: [wxqc] Web Site Moved >To: Discussion of data quality issues >Message-ID: <426C6821.9040101@comcast.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Hey Tom, > >Good site but you could like to a Russ' http://www.cwop.net site and >even your station's data on FINDU as well. > >See ya, > >Dave > >Tom Barstow wrote: > > > Well some good news I have relocated my website to a new host. > > > > www.moyockweather.com > > > > I will have a email for the site > > tbarstow@moyockweather.com > > > > I like to say thank you to the people that help me put my sight > > together. I had no experience with html code and playing around with > > Java. > > I would like to say special thanks to: > > > > Steve Fitzgerald http://www.apexncweather.com > > Gary Oldham http://www.ag-weather.com/main.html > > > > They help me out a lot and kept me on the right path. > > > > Well we be off to work on Monday and will not be back for about 45 days. > > > > Again to all many thanks and take a look at site. Always looking for > > ideas. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > >End of wxqc Digest, Vol 6, Issue 11 >*********************************** From tbarstow at earthlink.net Mon Apr 25 12:33:18 2005 From: tbarstow at earthlink.net (Tom Barstow) Date: Mon Apr 25 12:33:44 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Active Task Manager Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050425123123.01dfe5a0@mail.earthlink.net> I had a wish in the scrolling weather report to put both the Weather Warning and Forecast as one script to show on the website. The problem I ran into trying to run the batch file was Win XP scheduler would not be constant in running it. Of course that was going to work. Well I came across a program call Active Task Manager. In fact it looks something like I ran back in the days of BBS under MS-DOS. I got the program and it's great. No problems doing it schedule. It even do back ups, check harddrives, etc. You might want to check out and it only cost $15.00. Great little scheduler. website: http://www.orionsoftlab.com/tm/ Tom From dshelms at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 00:18:58 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:18:58 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: <000d01c5366a$19135da0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Message-ID: MessageYep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401&site=C3 321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/0a39be19/attachment-0002.html From bweybrecht at bellsouth.net Fri Apr 1 07:13:37 2005 From: bweybrecht at bellsouth.net (Bob) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:13:37 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002301c536b4$3bb0c1a0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Here's the data on the sensor. http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/009012_2. pdf -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:19 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Yep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401 &site=C3321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/54ebe15b/attachment-0002.html From dshelms at comcast.net Fri Apr 1 07:26:57 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:26:57 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: <002301c536b4$3bb0c1a0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Message-ID: MessageI want one. Them sell 'em at Walmart? Maybe Honeywell got those stats in their test chamber for the sensor, but in your backyard YMMV. -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:14 AM To: 'Discussion of data quality issues' Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Here's the data on the sensor. http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/009012_2.pdf -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:19 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Yep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401&site=C3 321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/f238d67b/attachment-0002.html From bweybrecht at bellsouth.net Fri Apr 1 18:10:45 2005 From: bweybrecht at bellsouth.net (Bob) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:10:45 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c53710$08e7f1b0$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> Actually, that's what's in the AAG humidity sensor. Supposedly, it's also used for medical applications http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/technical /faq_hummoisture.stm . What I've done is taken a piece of 2 inch white PVC. On the upper end, there's a 2 to 3 inch adapter with a 12 volt fan siliconed into the opening. There's two 90 degree bends, the other end of which attaches to about a foot of 2 inch pipe - think candy cane with a fan on the short end. The humidity, and pressure sensors are in this pipe. This whole assembly responds very quickly to temp and humidity changes - http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=cw3321 &last=6, and seems immune to direct sun. -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:27 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH I want one. Them sell 'em at Walmart? Maybe Honeywell got those stats in their test chamber for the sensor, but in your backyard YMMV. -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:14 AM To: 'Discussion of data quality issues' Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Here's the data on the sensor. http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/humiditymoisture/009012_2. pdf -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Sandy and David Helms Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:19 AM To: Discussion of data quality issues Subject: RE: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH Yep, the fog you describe should give you 100% RH (temp and dew point same) nearly every time. But, having fog doesn't mean you will have 100% RH. Sometimes there is a small layer near the surface that is not quite saturated yet the horizontal visibility can be very low. Its an old rule of thumb that you never code fog in an aviation weather (METAR) observation with dew point depression greater than 7 F (quiz for tonight, who knows what an AXXX bulletin is?), which is to say, you can get fog with temp/dew point depressions anywhere from 0 to 7 F degrees. On the Honeywell accuracy of 2%, I'm a bit skeptical. That kind of accuracy is typically reached by research quality hygrometers. I think most sensor manufacturers won't claim accuracies better than 5%, and that is a stretch as most hygrometer's performance will "drift" (degrade) over time. Looking over your station reports, you track very well with KILM with temp and dew point so you are doing very well. DaveH CW0351 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:23 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Fog, Dew Point, and RH If we are in a heavy fog, am I incorrect in believing that the RH is 100%? As I look at my QC data for Today, I note that I am supposedly in error from 05:00 - 10:00 for reporting a dew point pretty close to ambient temperature - ie; 100% humidity. During that time period, the entire area, including the weather service was under an extremely dense fog. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050401 &site=C3321 And the surrounding stations are reporting similar data.... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KILM.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLBT.html http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFAY.html I have three temperature sensors, and a Honeywell HIH 3610 humidity sensor in a fan aspirated tube with an intake 5 feet off the grass. The temperature sensors all read within .2 degrees F, and previously been verified accurate accurate within .3 degrees F at 32 F, and 212 F, I'm not likely to be reporting incorrect temperature. The Honeywell humidity sensor has a claimed accuracy of 2% Rh. SO..... If we are experiencing "can't see two feet in front of you" fog, should I not be reporting ambient temp = RH? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050401/36767bb5/attachment-0002.html From alan at batie.org Mon Apr 4 22:39:06 2005 From: alan at batie.org (Alan Batie) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:39:06 -0700 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> References: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> Weather Quality wrote: > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 > > Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' > The error value is 'analysis - observed'. Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor "xxx - yyy" (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a format). If I remember right, what this is really saying is that there was 1 error out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to replace that first paragraph: Explanation: Date: Date of the report. UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the observation. See below if the value is a word instead of a time - these entries are special entries with summary information. Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. Alt: Barometer data in millibars. Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, 180=South, 270=West) FF: Wind speed in knots For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated error value is computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error value will be negative. If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a summary report: Smry: statistical summary for the day Week: statistical summary for the week Mnth: statistical summary for the month In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard Deviation)" over the specified period. Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the count of errors for the specified summary period. Graphs: ... Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the site value, fwiw.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3196 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050404/6afe8780/attachment.bin From bweybrecht at bellsouth.net Mon Apr 4 23:48:33 2005 From: bweybrecht at bellsouth.net (Bob) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:48:33 -0400 Subject: [wxqc] Effect of Seabreeze on WX Quality Message-ID: <000601c53992$57514700$0a02a8c0@wsr88d> I noticed a major jump down in temperature, and up in dew point this afternoon. I looked at the radar, and saw something I'd seen before, but didn't know what it was. A call to KILM told me it's a phenomenon known as seabreeze. The meteorologist was surprised I was able to track the temp. drop / dewpoint spike so quickly (I'm using a fan ventilated tube.Of course, I fail QC for that interval 'cause no-one else tracked the 10 degree change so rapidly. What we're talking about is the thin red line bowing to the Northwest. They had the radar in clear air mode with the gain cranked at the time. My location is a little to the West of the + sign for Wilmington. This crossed my area at about 18:40 local / 22:40 utc. Wind jumped to the south. Barometer unaffected. More useless trivia... In case you've not noticed it on Radar before, the spike heading off to the west is RF noise from the sun setting. http://n2qew.dyndns.org/WxData/KILM%20Nexrad.PNG http://n2qew.dyndns.org/WxData/Seabreeze.PNG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050404/e37039a7/attachment-0002.html From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Apr 5 01:37:25 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Sandy and David Helms) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 01:37:25 -0400 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report terms explained In-Reply-To: <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> Message-ID: Hopefully the formatting of this email will come through, if not set to Courier Font: Explanation of the QCMS Message DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 03-APR-2005 2333 CW3462 *1012.(0.2)* 64( 1.8) *30.2( -6)* 0(-55.)* 0(2.07) 03-APR-2005 Smry CW3462 * -0.2(0.6)*-0.6(1.79) *-3.7(1.84)*6.46(84.5)*-1.4(1.11) 03-APR-2005 Week CW3462 *0.95(0.75)* 0.94(1.88)*-1 (2.28)*-5.6(78.6)*0.98(1.62) You should probably just look at second and third rows, the "Smry" (summary) and "Week" (7 days average) rows. The acronyms at the top: 1. ALT = Altimeter, station pressure reduced to sea level so you can compare your pressure with other stations not at the same elevation, pressure is shown in millibars (MB) format. Week: 0.95(0.75), adding +0.95 millibar (+00.03 inches of mercury) to your mean observation is needed to have exactly the mean (altimeter) pressure indicated by the analysis. The (0.75) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean pressure, + or minus 0.75 millibars. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 2. POT TEMP = Potential Temperature;this is your temperature, also reduced to sea level. That is, if you filled a balloon at your house with "ambient" air and drove as fast as you could to the beach, and then stuck a temperature sensor in the balloon (now deflated somewhat), you would measure the potential temperature. As you descend elevation, temperatures increase due to increasing pressure (why the balloon appears to deflate). The rule is dry air cools 5.4F degrees every 1,000 feet you descend. So, if your temperature is 60.6F at your location, the (potential) temperature at the beach will be 65.0F (nice that you are at exactly 1,000 feet elevation!). Week: 0.94(1.88), adding +0.94 F degrees from your average temperature will make your average (potential) temperature the same as the surrounding temperatures. The (1.88) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean temperature, + or minus 1.88 F degrees. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 3. DEW PT = Dew Point, the temperature needed to have 100% relative humidity Week: -1.0 (2.28), subtracting 1.0 F degrees from your average dew point temperature will make your average dew point temperature the same as the surrounding average dew point temperatures. The (2.28) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean temperature, + or minus 2.28 F degrees. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 4. DD = Wind Direction, in 360 degrees Week: -5.6(78.6), subtracting 5.6 F degrees from your average wind direction will make your average wind direction the same as the surrounding average wind direction. The (78.6) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean temperature, + or minus 78.6 F degrees. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation, then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). 5. FF = Wind Speed, in nautical miles per hour (KTS), 1.00 KTS = 1.15 mph Week: 0.98(1.62), adding +0.98 knots to your average wind speed will make your average wind speed the same as the surrounding average wind direction. The (1.62) is the variability (standard deviation) of your observations relative to the mean wind speed, + or minus 1.62 knots. When the mean error is much greater (x2) than the standard deviation (the number inside the parentheses), then it is probably time for a calibration (you are doing well). -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Alan Batie Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 10:39 PM To: wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 Weather Quality wrote: > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 > > Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' > The error value is 'analysis - observed'. Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor "xxx - yyy" (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a format). If I remember right, what this is really saying is that there was 1 error out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to replace that first paragraph: Explanation: Date: Date of the report. UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the observation. See below if the value is a word instead of a time - these entries are special entries with summary information. Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. Alt: Barometer data in millibars. Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, 180=South, 270=West) FF: Wind speed in knots For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated error value is computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error value will be negative. If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a summary report: Smry: statistical summary for the day Week: statistical summary for the week Mnth: statistical summary for the month In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard Deviation)" over the specified period. Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the count of errors for the specified summary period. Graphs: ... Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the site value, fwiw.. From philip at gladstonefamily.net Thu Apr 7 22:23:28 2005 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:23:28 -0400 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> References: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> Message-ID: <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> Alan, thanks for this suggestion. I'm trying to rework the emails to make them more useful. I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the formatting is (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now handle HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation that I had before. I'm looking at incorporating your text...... stay tuned Philip Alan Batie wrote: > Weather Quality wrote: > >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * >> DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * >> (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * >> * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 >> Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are 'Observed (error)' >> The error value is 'analysis - observed'. > > > Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual > output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor "xxx - yyy" > (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a format). If I > remember right, what this is really saying is that there was 1 error > out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? > > Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to > replace that first paragraph: > > Explanation: > > Date: Date of the report. > UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the > observation. See below if the value is a word instead of > a time - these entries are special entries with summary > information. > Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. > Alt: Barometer data in millibars. > Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit > Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit > DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, 180=South, 270=West) > FF: Wind speed in knots > > For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of > "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated error value is > computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined > from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the > reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error value will > be negative. > > If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a summary report: > > Smry: statistical summary for the day > Week: statistical summary for the week > Mnth: statistical summary for the month > > In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard > Deviation)" over the specified period. > > Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" > If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. > If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the > count of errors for the specified summary period. > > Graphs: > ... > > Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the site value, > fwiw.. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > -- 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/20050407/9d352338/attachment.bin From alan at batie.org Thu Apr 7 23:23:05 2005 From: alan at batie.org (Alan Batie) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:23:05 -0700 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> References: <20050405010649.10764.qmail@charon.gladstonefamily.net> <4251FA4A.5030504@batie.org> <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <4255F919.9020308@batie.org> Philip Gladstone wrote: > I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the formatting is > (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now handle > HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation that I had before. Although I'm now using mozilla as my primary mail reader, I still prefer my mail to be mail, not a web page ;-) The only issue I have is that the description doesn't match what's in the report. I would recommend including a link in the mail, but not the entire web page... To save bandwidth, chop the description entirely from the daily reports and just include it in the weekly reports as a reminder. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3196 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20050407/bb5e0e9d/attachment.bin From mojito at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 23:47:36 2005 From: mojito at gmail.com (Mojito Jones) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:47:36 -0400 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4255EB20.6070605@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <4255feda.29bb9ae3.31c8.ffff9d7b@mx.gmail.com> I'd appreciate it if you would keep the text format as a option. Html is for web pages. Text is for email messages. Personally I force all incoming messages to text to strip html from my incoming messages. As an alternative, if you need the extra room, you might consider eliminating all but the summary line and link on the email and put the error messages on the station's status page. K > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of > Philip Gladstone > Sent: 07 April 2005 22:23 > To: Discussion of data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 > > Alan, > > thanks for this suggestion. I'm trying to rework the emails > to make them > more useful. I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the > formatting is > (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now handle > HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation that > I had before. > > I'm looking at incorporating your text...... > > stay tuned > > Philip > > > > Alan Batie wrote: > > > Weather Quality wrote: > > > >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * > >> DD * FF * (MB) * > (DEG F) * > >> (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * > > >> * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 > >> Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are > 'Observed (error)' > >> The error value is 'analysis - observed'. > > > > > > Could someone fix this script so the description matches the actual > > output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor > "xxx - yyy" > > (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a > format). If I > > remember right, what this is really saying is that there > was 1 error > > out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? > > > > Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to > > replace that first paragraph: > > > > Explanation: > > > > Date: Date of the report. > > UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the > > observation. See below if the value is a word instead of > > a time - these entries are special entries with summary > > information. > > Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. > > Alt: Barometer data in millibars. > > Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit > > Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit > > DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, > 180=South, 270=West) > > FF: Wind speed in knots > > > > For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of > > "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated > error value is > > computed by subtracting the reported value from a value determined > > from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, thus if the > > reported value is higher than the analysis value, the error > value will > > be negative. > > > > If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a > summary report: > > > > Smry: statistical summary for the day > > Week: statistical summary for the week > > Mnth: statistical summary for the month > > > > In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard > > Deviation)" over the specified period. > > > > Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports received" > > If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date listed. > > If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it is the > > count of errors for the specified summary period. > > > > Graphs: > > ... > > > > Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the > site value, > > fwiw.. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > > > >_______________________________________________ > >wxqc mailing list > >wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net > >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > > > > > > -- > Philip Gladstone > * Check out the live pondcam at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net > > From flaplante at flos-inc.com Fri Apr 8 10:35:48 2005 From: flaplante at flos-inc.com (Fred LaPlante) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:35:48 -0400 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 In-Reply-To: <4255feda.29bb9ae3.31c8.ffff9d7b@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200548103548.597505@teak> I too do not accept html email. And I like the suggestion in the 2nd paragraph below. Lets keep the info brief but still have access to the detail if wanted. Also an explanation of the message is needed, but certainly can be maintained at a link. No need to see it all every day, just to be able to find it. Fred -- flaplante at flos-inc.com on 4/8/2005 On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:47:36 -0400, Mojito Jones wrote: > I'd appreciate it if you would keep the text format as a option. > Html is for web pages. Text is for email messages. Personally I > force all incoming messages to text to strip html from my incoming > messages. > > As an alternative, if you need the extra room, you might consider > eliminating all but the summary line and link on the email and put > the error messages on the station's status page. > > K > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net >> [mailto:wxqc-bounces at lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of >> Philip Gladstone Sent: 07 April 2005 22:23 To: Discussion of data >> quality issues >> Subject: Re: [wxqc] Re: Weather data quality report for 2005-04-04 >> >> Alan, >> >> thanks for this suggestion. I'm trying to rework the emails to >> make them >> more useful. I have added a way to get them in HTML -- the >> formatting is >> (somewhat) better there, and I think that most people can now >> handle HTML. In particular, it removes the 72 column limitation >> that I had before. >> >> I'm looking at incorporating your text...... >> >> stay tuned >> >> Philip >> >> >> Alan Batie wrote: >> >>> Weather Quality wrote: >>> >>>> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD >>>> * FF * (MB) * >>>> >> (DEG F) * >>>> (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 04-APR-2005 Errs CW2408 * >>>> >>>> * 1/85 * * 0/85 * 0/85 >>>> Note that times are in UTC. The values displayed are >>>> >> 'Observed (error)' >>>> The error value is 'analysis - observed'. >>>> >>> >>> Could someone fix this script so the description matches the >>> actual output: there is nothing in a format of "xxx (yyy)", nor >>> >> "xxx - yyy" >>> (though I think that is an arithmetic statement, not a >>> >> format). If I >>> remember right, what this is really saying is that there >>> >> was 1 error >>> out of 85 reports in the Pot Temp today and no other errors? >>> >>> Actually, as I look through several of these, how about this to >>> replace that first paragraph: >>> >>> Explanation: >>> >>> Date: Date of the report. >>> UTC: Universal Coordinated Time (Greenwich Mean Time) of the >>> observation. See below if the value is a word instead of a >>> time - these entries are special entries with summary >>> information. >>> Site: Station id of the reporting weather station. Alt: >>> Barometer data in millibars. Pot Temp: Temperature in degrees >>> Fahrenheit Dew Pnt: Dew point data in degrees Fahrenheit >>> DD: Wind direction in degrees (0=North, 90=East, >>> >> 180=South, 270=West) >>> FF: Wind speed in knots >>> >>> For normal timestamped entries, the values are in the format of >>> "Observed value(estimated error value)". The estimated >>> >> error value is >>> computed by subtracting the reported value from a value >>> determined from statistical analysis of surrounding stations, >>> thus if the reported value is higher than the analysis value, >>> the error >>> >> value will >>> be negative. >>> >>> If the value in the UTC column is a word, then it is a >>> >> summary report: >> >>> Smry: statistical summary for the day >>> Week: statistical summary for the week >>> Mnth: statistical summary for the month >>> >>> In these cases, the report data is in the format "Mean(Standard >>> Deviation)" over the specified period. >>> >>> Errs: An error count, in the format "# errors/#reports >>> received" If this occurs by itself, it is a report for the date >>> listed. If it occurs with a statistical summary report, then it >>> is the count of errors for the specified summary period. >>> >>> Graphs: >>> ... >>> >>> Also, in the last report, the Graphs link didn't have the >>> >> site value, >>> fwiw.. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> ----------- >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wxqc mailing list >>> wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net >>> http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>> >> >> -- >> 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 From hugal at ott.net Sat Apr 9 12:46:20 2005 From: hugal at ott.net (Al Huggard) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 11:46:20 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] Bar quality graphs Message-ID: <000d01c53d23$ac0efbe0$41d2f446@al07ti2sxm71qt> To any one who can help me. On the QC graph for my station C3525, I am tracking right (above and below) on the analysis track. However on the "all stations" graph I am still about 1mb low of the target box. If I include the surrounding airports on the graph of just my station I appear to be about 1mb high as does the analysis track. Should I adjust for the target box on the "all stations" graph (increase my bar by 1mb or should I reduce my bar by .5 or l mb to more closely follow the surrounding measurements on the airport stations which I presume to be the most accurate. I am about + or - 30 miles south and southwest of the airport stations. I haven't had a calm enough wind day recently to check my local Airport although it is a very small privately operated station and for precise accuracy they might be suspect. Al From kd5hqq at eastex.net Sat Apr 16 07:18:08 2005 From: kd5hqq at eastex.net (Don Revel) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:18:08 -0500 Subject: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" Message-ID: Hello everyone, My name is Don. Better known as KD5HQQ or KTXRYE1. I need some assistance with software for my Peet Bro's 2000. I have tried VWS, Weather View32, Weather Display and others. All have had serious problems of one kind or another. I like Weather Display the most but it not communicate with the station correctly. I am online with VWS till I decide what to purchase. I own Weather Outlook (excellent data logger) from Peet but it does not support any web except APRS. What else is there? Can anyone help? Thank you for your assistance. 73'S DON REVEL KD5HQQ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.8 - Release Date: 4/13/2005 From gary.oldham at adelphia.net Sat Apr 16 07:21:26 2005 From: gary.oldham at adelphia.net (Gary Oldham) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:21:26 -0400 Subject: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4260F536.7010008@adelphia.net> I think you've about tried them all, Don. The Peet uses a somewhat different communications protocol than most weather stations, and I know it gives software developers a big headache. Andy Weir's program FreeWX has a good reputation, but I can't remember if it supports the Peet, it may just do the Oregon Scientific series, but you may want to check that out. Gary Oldham N6SKK/CW0146 www.ag-weather.com Don Revel wrote: >Hello everyone, > My name is Don. Better known as KD5HQQ or KTXRYE1. I need some assistance >with software for my Peet Bro's 2000. I have tried VWS, Weather View32, >Weather Display and others. All have had serious problems of one kind or >another. I like Weather Display the most but it not communicate with the >station correctly. I am online with VWS till I decide what to purchase. I >own Weather Outlook (excellent data logger) from Peet but it does not >support any web except APRS. What else is there? Can anyone help? Thank you >for your assistance. > >73'S >DON REVEL >KD5HQQ > > > > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005 From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Apr 16 12:12:55 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:12:55 -0400 Subject: [wxqc] "Break Out the Gag Book, Green Horn on the List" In-Reply-To: <4260F536.7010008@adelphia.net> References: <4260F536.7010008@adelphia.net> Message-ID: <42613987.7080104@comcast.net> Hi Don, If you want to create a weather web page and upload