From EasyLyle at cfl.rr.com Sun Jan 16 21:54:52 2005 From: EasyLyle at cfl.rr.com (EasyLyle) Date: Sun Jan 16 21:58:04 2005 Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 Message-ID: Being a newbie to the CWOP group I cannot decipher what you are trying to tell me in the attached report. I've read and reread the material supplied, been to a dozen plus urls. Its probably simple, but being German, I'm sometimes thick headed! Thanks! Lyle_R Lyle R. Schultz, 513 Twin Lakes Drive Titusville, FL 32780 321-917-8724 -----Original Message----- From: Weather Quality [mailto:weather-qc@nospam.gladstonefamily.net] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:06 PM To: EasyLyle@cfl.rr.com Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 1045 CW2689 *1016(1.02)* 58(1.09)*54.8(-6.1)* 340( -45)*4.34(-0.3) 16-JAN-2005 1100 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* 360( -48)*5.21(-0.9) 16-JAN-2005 1115 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* 8( -67)*4.34(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 1130 CW2689 *1017(1.06)* 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* 27( -86)*6.08( -2) 16-JAN-2005 1230 CW2689 *1018(1.27)* 56(0.79)*53.1(-6.5)* 4( -62)*5.21(-0.7) 16-JAN-2005 1245 CW2689 *1019(0.87)* 56(0.79)*53.4(-6.8)* 352( -48)*5.21(-1.6) 16-JAN-2005 1300 CW2689 *1019(1.48)* 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.7)* 357( -36)*5.21(-0.6) 16-JAN-2005 1316 CW2689 *1019(1.28)* 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.8)* 354( -33)*4.34(0.27) 16-JAN-2005 1335 CW2689 *1019(0.98)* 55(0.95)* 53(-6.8)* 58( -97)*4.34(0.27) 16-JAN-2005 1350 CW2689 *1020(0.65)* 55(0.95)* 53(-6.7)* 17( -56)*4.34(0.27) 16-JAN-2005 1405 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 32( -58)*3.48(0.75) 16-JAN-2005 1420 CW2689 *1020( 1.2)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 350( -16)*3.48(0.75) 16-JAN-2005 1430 CW2689 *1020(1.24)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 359( -25)*4.34(-0.1) 16-JAN-2005 1450 CW2689 *1020(0.54)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 357( -23)*4.34(-0.1) 16-JAN-2005 1500 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.33)* 53(-6.2)* 347(-8.1)*4.34(1.73) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) 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. Graphs: http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C2689 For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ To discuss, sign up to WXQC at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc To stop this email, just click the link http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=a0ba6364 b8 From hlemon22 at mindspring.com Sun Jan 16 23:58:58 2005 From: hlemon22 at mindspring.com (Harold Lemon) Date: Mon Jan 17 00:00:32 2005 Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 References: Message-ID: <002201c4fc51$431ad900$cd6df304@lharhome> You are not alone, Lyle. I just joined and I am having the same problem trying to figure it out. Maybe someone could provide an explanation in layman's terms for us analytically-challenged as to what's good, bad, and downright unacceptable. Thanks. Harold CW3109 ----- Original Message ----- From: "EasyLyle" To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:54 PM Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 Being a newbie to the CWOP group I cannot decipher what you are trying to tell me in the attached report. I've read and reread the material supplied, been to a dozen plus urls. Its probably simple, but being German, I'm sometimes thick headed! Thanks! Lyle_R Lyle R. Schultz, 513 Twin Lakes Drive Titusville, FL 32780 321-917-8724 -----Original Message----- From: Weather Quality [mailto:weather-qc@nospam.gladstonefamily.net] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:06 PM To: EasyLyle@cfl.rr.com Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 1045 CW2689 *1016(1.02)* 58(1.09)*54.8(-6.1)* 340( -45)*4.34(-0.3) 16-JAN-2005 1100 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* 360( -48)*5.21(-0.9) 16-JAN-2005 1115 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* 8( -67)*4.34(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 1130 CW2689 *1017(1.06)* 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* 27( -86)*6.08( -2) 16-JAN-2005 1230 CW2689 *1018(1.27)* 56(0.79)*53.1(-6.5)* 4( -62)*5.21(-0.7) 16-JAN-2005 1245 CW2689 *1019(0.87)* 56(0.79)*53.4(-6.8)* 352( -48)*5.21(-1.6) 16-JAN-2005 1300 CW2689 *1019(1.48)* 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.7)* 357( -36)*5.21(-0.6) 16-JAN-2005 1316 CW2689 *1019(1.28)* 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.8)* 354( -33)*4.34(0.27) 16-JAN-2005 1335 CW2689 *1019(0.98)* 55(0.95)* 53(-6.8)* 58( -97)*4.34(0.27) 16-JAN-2005 1350 CW2689 *1020(0.65)* 55(0.95)* 53(-6.7)* 17( -56)*4.34(0.27) 16-JAN-2005 1405 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 32( -58)*3.48(0.75) 16-JAN-2005 1420 CW2689 *1020( 1.2)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 350( -16)*3.48(0.75) 16-JAN-2005 1430 CW2689 *1020(1.24)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 359( -25)*4.34(-0.1) 16-JAN-2005 1450 CW2689 *1020(0.54)* 55(0.48)* 53(-6.7)* 357( -23)*4.34(-0.1) 16-JAN-2005 1500 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.33)* 53(-6.2)* 347(-8.1)*4.34(1.73) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) 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. Graphs: http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C2689 For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ To discuss, sign up to WXQC at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc To stop this email, just click the link http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=a0ba6364 b8 _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From garret_petersen at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 00:56:11 2005 From: garret_petersen at yahoo.com (Garret Petersen) Date: Mon Jan 17 00:56:15 2005 Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 In-Reply-To: <002201c4fc51$431ad900$cd6df304@lharhome> Message-ID: <20050117055612.6354.qmail@web40825.mail.yahoo.com> I don't understand how the quality report can be justified? How can a weather model tell that my weather station is in error? Maybe the model is in error. Maybe the weather stations around me are wrong and mine is right? Lots of specualtion. Garret --- Harold Lemon wrote: > > You are not alone, Lyle. I just joined and I am > having the same problem trying > to figure it out. Maybe someone could provide an > explanation in layman's terms > for us analytically-challenged as to what's good, > bad, and downright > unacceptable. Thanks. > > Harold > CW3109 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "EasyLyle" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:54 PM > Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for > 2005-01-16 > > > Being a newbie to the CWOP group I cannot decipher > what you are trying to > tell me in the attached report. I've read and > reread the material supplied, > been to a dozen plus urls. > > Its probably simple, but being German, I'm sometimes > thick headed! > > Thanks! > > Lyle_R > > Lyle R. Schultz, > 513 Twin Lakes Drive > Titusville, FL 32780 > > 321-917-8724 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Weather Quality > [mailto:weather-qc@nospam.gladstonefamily.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:06 PM > To: EasyLyle@cfl.rr.com > Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 > > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * > DEW PNT * DD * > FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * > (DEG F) * (DEG) * > (KNT) > 16-JAN-2005 1045 CW2689 *1016(1.02)* > 58(1.09)*54.8(-6.1)* > 340( -45)*4.34(-0.3) > 16-JAN-2005 1100 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* > 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* > 360( -48)*5.21(-0.9) > 16-JAN-2005 1115 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* > 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* > 8( -67)*4.34(-0.2) > 16-JAN-2005 1130 CW2689 *1017(1.06)* > 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* > 27( -86)*6.08( -2) > 16-JAN-2005 1230 CW2689 *1018(1.27)* > 56(0.79)*53.1(-6.5)* > 4( -62)*5.21(-0.7) > 16-JAN-2005 1245 CW2689 *1019(0.87)* > 56(0.79)*53.4(-6.8)* > 352( -48)*5.21(-1.6) > 16-JAN-2005 1300 CW2689 *1019(1.48)* > 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.7)* > 357( -36)*5.21(-0.6) > 16-JAN-2005 1316 CW2689 *1019(1.28)* > 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.8)* > 354( -33)*4.34(0.27) > 16-JAN-2005 1335 CW2689 *1019(0.98)* 55(0.95)* > 53(-6.8)* > 58( -97)*4.34(0.27) > 16-JAN-2005 1350 CW2689 *1020(0.65)* 55(0.95)* > 53(-6.7)* > 17( -56)*4.34(0.27) > 16-JAN-2005 1405 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.48)* > 53(-6.7)* > 32( -58)*3.48(0.75) > 16-JAN-2005 1420 CW2689 *1020( 1.2)* 55(0.48)* > 53(-6.7)* > 350( -16)*3.48(0.75) > 16-JAN-2005 1430 CW2689 *1020(1.24)* 55(0.48)* > 53(-6.7)* > 359( -25)*4.34(-0.1) > 16-JAN-2005 1450 CW2689 *1020(0.54)* 55(0.48)* > 53(-6.7)* > 357( -23)*4.34(-0.1) > 16-JAN-2005 1500 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.33)* > 53(-6.2)* > 347(-8.1)*4.34(1.73) > 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 > *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( > 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) > > 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. > > Graphs: > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C2689 > > For more information about quality checking, then > visit http://www.wxqa.com/ > To discuss, sign up to WXQC at > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > To stop this email, just click the link > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=a0ba6364 > b8 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From Evan.Bookbinder at noaa.gov Mon Jan 17 09:07:32 2005 From: Evan.Bookbinder at noaa.gov (Evan Bookbinder) Date: Mon Jan 17 09:11:17 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 In-Reply-To: <20050117055612.6354.qmail@web40825.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050117055612.6354.qmail@web40825.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41EBC6A4.6090801@noaa.gov> Lyle/Garret, The QC (quality control) reports are generated to provide CWOP users with an understanding of how their data is used and how it *MIGHT* (not is) be in error. The program takes you data and compares it with an objective analysis and surrounding stations and outputs a qualitative error for each variable on your weather station. You'll note that potential temperature is used instead of air temperature. This helps resolve any differences in terrain (or stations in the Rockies would all flag each other as bad). Note that numerous surrounding stations are used in comparison against yours, so it would be near impossible to have all those surrounding stations wrong and yours be correct. When could data be flagged as bad when it isn't? Usual scenario for this is a strong cold front just passed through your area. If your wind suddenly shits 180 degrees and temperature/dewpoint plummet, the analysis and other stations (possibly on the other side of the front) are going to look out of whack. There's no way for the algorithm to know there's a front there. Data quality should be looked at over a several day period to get enough observations to say "hey, there's something wrong here". So, how is this data useful and what is "bad"? 1.) If the same weather variable (let's say wind) is getting flagged for days on end, chances are you have a bad instrument or it needs to be calibrated. The three biggest mistakes of home weather station users are: forgetting to set the barometer to their elevation, not using a compass to align the wind direction, and placing the temperature sensor where it's going to receive direct sunlight. The third item can be avoided for those who purchased an aspirated housing (such as the one Davis offers). The barometer issue can be corrected by calling the local NWS office or news and giving them your location and asking for an altimeter reading. 2.) So what do I consider "bad" (again these would be consistent over a couple days)? a. Pressure > 2mb off b. Temperature > 2 degrees (potential) c. Dewpoint > 3 degrees (potential) d. Wind Direction > 30 degrees e. Wind Speed > 5 mph So looking at your station (again I only have a day's data and I KNOW a front plowed through there yesterday).... DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) The numbers above are showing you the mean error for the day (positive is too high/warm, negative too low/cold) and the standard deviation in parenthesis. Barometer: Mean error 1.21 (STD 0.22)....given there's a front, this is right on the money Temperature. Running a bit high, but watch for a few days. Your dewpoint is running rather low and standard deviation of 3.3 is large. This could be front induced, but if this number continues for a few days, I would recommend checking the sensor. The NWS has a station right nearby http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?stn=KTTS&n=24&code=d (note the times are in greenwich mean time, but the one at the bottom is current). You can check your data against it. Your wind direction seems to be the most in error. Make sure you aligned the wind sensor with a compass as shown in your weather station manual. Hope this helps! Evan NWS Springfield, MO > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garret Petersen" > > To: "Discussion of data quality issues" ; > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:56 PM > Subject: Re: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 > > >> I don't understand how the quality report can be >> justified? How can a weather model tell that my >> weather station is in error? Maybe the model is in >> error. Maybe the weather stations around me are wrong >> and mine is right? Lots of specualtion. >> >> Garret >> >> >> --- Harold Lemon wrote: >> >>> >>> You are not alone, Lyle. I just joined and I am >>> having the same problem trying >>> to figure it out. Maybe someone could provide an >>> explanation in layman's terms >>> for us analytically-challenged as to what's good, >>> bad, and downright >>> unacceptable. Thanks. >>> >>> Harold >>> CW3109 >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "EasyLyle" >>> To: >>> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:54 PM >>> Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for >>> 2005-01-16 >>> >>> >>> Being a newbie to the CWOP group I cannot decipher >>> what you are trying to >>> tell me in the attached report. I've read and >>> reread the material supplied, >>> been to a dozen plus urls. >>> >>> Its probably simple, but being German, I'm sometimes >>> thick headed! >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Lyle_R >>> >>> Lyle R. Schultz, >>> 513 Twin Lakes Drive >>> Titusville, FL 32780 >>> >>> 321-917-8724 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Weather Quality >>> [mailto:weather-qc@nospam.gladstonefamily.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:06 PM >>> To: EasyLyle@cfl.rr.com >>> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 >>> >>> >>> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * >>> DEW PNT * DD * >>> FF >>> * (MB) * (DEG F) * >>> (DEG F) * (DEG) * >>> (KNT) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1045 CW2689 *1016(1.02)* >>> 58(1.09)*54.8(-6.1)* >>> 340( -45)*4.34(-0.3) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1100 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* >>> 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* >>> 360( -48)*5.21(-0.9) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1115 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* >>> 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* >>> 8( -67)*4.34(-0.2) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1130 CW2689 *1017(1.06)* >>> 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* >>> 27( -86)*6.08( -2) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1230 CW2689 *1018(1.27)* >>> 56(0.79)*53.1(-6.5)* >>> 4( -62)*5.21(-0.7) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1245 CW2689 *1019(0.87)* >>> 56(0.79)*53.4(-6.8)* >>> 352( -48)*5.21(-1.6) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1300 CW2689 *1019(1.48)* >>> 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.7)* >>> 357( -36)*5.21(-0.6) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1316 CW2689 *1019(1.28)* >>> 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.8)* >>> 354( -33)*4.34(0.27) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1335 CW2689 *1019(0.98)* 55(0.95)* >>> 53(-6.8)* >>> 58( -97)*4.34(0.27) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1350 CW2689 *1020(0.65)* 55(0.95)* >>> 53(-6.7)* >>> 17( -56)*4.34(0.27) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1405 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.48)* >>> 53(-6.7)* >>> 32( -58)*3.48(0.75) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1420 CW2689 *1020( 1.2)* 55(0.48)* >>> 53(-6.7)* >>> 350( -16)*3.48(0.75) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1430 CW2689 *1020(1.24)* 55(0.48)* >>> 53(-6.7)* >>> 359( -25)*4.34(-0.1) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1450 CW2689 *1020(0.54)* 55(0.48)* >>> 53(-6.7)* >>> 357( -23)*4.34(-0.1) >>> 16-JAN-2005 1500 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.33)* >>> 53(-6.2)* >>> 347(-8.1)*4.34(1.73) >>> 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 >>> *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( >>> 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Graphs: >>> >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C2689 >> >> >>> >>> For more information about quality checking, then >>> visit http://www.wxqa.com/ >>> To discuss, sign up to WXQC at >>> >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>> >>> To stop this email, just click the link >>> >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=a0ba6364 >> >> >>> b8 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. >> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 >> _______________________________________________ >> wxqc mailing list >> wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >> http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> From ebookbinder at mchsi.com Mon Jan 17 08:18:02 2005 From: ebookbinder at mchsi.com (Evan Bookbinder) Date: Mon Jan 17 09:42:47 2005 Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 References: <20050117055612.6354.qmail@web40825.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <011601c4fc96$f94aa850$6601a8c0@HPLAPTOP> Lyle/Garret, The QC (quality control) reports are generated to provide CWOP users with an understanding of how their data is used and how it *MIGHT* (not is) be in error. The program takes you data and compares it with an objective analysis and surrounding stations and outputs a qualitative error for each variable on your weather station. You'll note that potential temperature is used instead of air temperature. This helps resolve any differences in terrain (or stations in the Rockies would all flag each other as bad). Note that numerous surrounding stations are used in comparison against yours, so it would be near impossible to have all those surrounding stations wrong and yours be correct. When could data be flagged as bad when it isn't? Usual scenario for this is a strong cold front just passed through your area. If your wind suddenly shits 180 degrees and temperature/dewpoint plummet, the analysis and other stations (possibly on the other side of the front) are going to look out of whack. There's no way for the algorithm to know there's a front there. Data quality should be looked at over a several day period to get enough observations to say "hey, there's something wrong here". So, how is this data useful and what is "bad"? 1.) If the same weather variable (let's say wind) is getting flagged for days on end, chances are you have a bad instrument or it needs to be calibrated. The three biggest mistakes of home weather station users are: forgetting to set the barometer to their elevation, not using a compass to align the wind direction, and placing the temperature sensor where it's going to receive direct sunlight. The third item can be avoided for those who purchased an aspirated housing (such as the one Davis offers). The barometer issue can be corrected by calling the local NWS office or news and giving them your location and asking for an altimeter reading. 2.) So what do I consider "bad" (again these would be consistent over a couple days)? a. Pressure > 2mb off b. Temperature > 2 degrees (potential) c. Dewpoint > 3 degrees (potential) d. Wind Direction > 30 degrees e. Wind Speed > 5 mph So looking at your station (again I only have a day's data and I KNOW a front plowed through there yesterday).... DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) The numbers above are showing you the mean error for the day (positive is too high/warm, negative too low/cold) and the standard deviation in parenthesis. Barometer: Mean error 1.21 (STD 0.22)....given there's a front, this is right on the money Temperature. Running a bit high, but watch for a few days. Your dewpoint is running rather low and standard deviation of 3.3 is large. This could be front induced, but if this number continues for a few days, I would recommend checking the sensor. The NWS has a station right nearby http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?stn=KTTS&n=24&code=d (note the times are in greenwich mean time, but the one at the bottom is current). You can check your data against it. Your wind direction seems to be the most in error. Make sure you aligned the wind sensor with a compass as shown in your weather station manual. Hope this helps! Evan NWS Springfield, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garret Petersen" To: "Discussion of data quality issues" ; Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 >I don't understand how the quality report can be > justified? How can a weather model tell that my > weather station is in error? Maybe the model is in > error. Maybe the weather stations around me are wrong > and mine is right? Lots of specualtion. > > Garret > > > --- Harold Lemon wrote: > >> >> You are not alone, Lyle. I just joined and I am >> having the same problem trying >> to figure it out. Maybe someone could provide an >> explanation in layman's terms >> for us analytically-challenged as to what's good, >> bad, and downright >> unacceptable. Thanks. >> >> Harold >> CW3109 >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "EasyLyle" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:54 PM >> Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for >> 2005-01-16 >> >> >> Being a newbie to the CWOP group I cannot decipher >> what you are trying to >> tell me in the attached report. I've read and >> reread the material supplied, >> been to a dozen plus urls. >> >> Its probably simple, but being German, I'm sometimes >> thick headed! >> >> Thanks! >> >> Lyle_R >> >> Lyle R. Schultz, >> 513 Twin Lakes Drive >> Titusville, FL 32780 >> >> 321-917-8724 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Weather Quality >> [mailto:weather-qc@nospam.gladstonefamily.net] >> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:06 PM >> To: EasyLyle@cfl.rr.com >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 >> >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * >> DEW PNT * DD * >> FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * >> (DEG F) * (DEG) * >> (KNT) >> 16-JAN-2005 1045 CW2689 *1016(1.02)* >> 58(1.09)*54.8(-6.1)* >> 340( -45)*4.34(-0.3) >> 16-JAN-2005 1100 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* >> 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* >> 360( -48)*5.21(-0.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 1115 CW2689 *1017(1.51)* >> 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* >> 8( -67)*4.34(-0.2) >> 16-JAN-2005 1130 CW2689 *1017(1.06)* >> 58(0.35)*54.8(-6.7)* >> 27( -86)*6.08( -2) >> 16-JAN-2005 1230 CW2689 *1018(1.27)* >> 56(0.79)*53.1(-6.5)* >> 4( -62)*5.21(-0.7) >> 16-JAN-2005 1245 CW2689 *1019(0.87)* >> 56(0.79)*53.4(-6.8)* >> 352( -48)*5.21(-1.6) >> 16-JAN-2005 1300 CW2689 *1019(1.48)* >> 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.7)* >> 357( -36)*5.21(-0.6) >> 16-JAN-2005 1316 CW2689 *1019(1.28)* >> 55(0.95)*52.7(-6.8)* >> 354( -33)*4.34(0.27) >> 16-JAN-2005 1335 CW2689 *1019(0.98)* 55(0.95)* >> 53(-6.8)* >> 58( -97)*4.34(0.27) >> 16-JAN-2005 1350 CW2689 *1020(0.65)* 55(0.95)* >> 53(-6.7)* >> 17( -56)*4.34(0.27) >> 16-JAN-2005 1405 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.48)* >> 53(-6.7)* >> 32( -58)*3.48(0.75) >> 16-JAN-2005 1420 CW2689 *1020( 1.2)* 55(0.48)* >> 53(-6.7)* >> 350( -16)*3.48(0.75) >> 16-JAN-2005 1430 CW2689 *1020(1.24)* 55(0.48)* >> 53(-6.7)* >> 359( -25)*4.34(-0.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 1450 CW2689 *1020(0.54)* 55(0.48)* >> 53(-6.7)* >> 357( -23)*4.34(-0.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 1500 CW2689 *1020( 1.3)* 55(0.33)* >> 53(-6.2)* >> 347(-8.1)*4.34(1.73) >> 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 >> *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( >> 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) >> >> 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. >> >> Graphs: >> > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C2689 >> >> For more information about quality checking, then >> visit http://www.wxqa.com/ >> To discuss, sign up to WXQC at >> > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >> To stop this email, just click the link >> > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=a0ba6364 >> b8 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From garret_petersen at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 13:11:18 2005 From: garret_petersen at yahoo.com (Garret Petersen) Date: Mon Jan 17 13:11:23 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 In-Reply-To: <41EBC6A4.6090801@noaa.gov> Message-ID: <20050117181119.99052.qmail@web40825.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Evan, Your reply was appriciated. Garret --- Evan Bookbinder wrote: > Lyle/Garret, > > The QC (quality control) reports are generated to > provide CWOP users > with an > understanding of how their data is used and how it > *MIGHT* (not is) be in > error. The program takes you data and compares it > with an objective > analysis > and surrounding stations and outputs a qualitative > error for each variable > on your weather station. You'll note that potential > temperature is used > instead of air temperature. This helps resolve any > differences in terrain > (or stations in the Rockies would all flag each > other as bad). Note that > numerous surrounding stations are used in comparison > against yours, so it > would be near impossible to have all those > surrounding stations wrong and > yours be correct. > > When could data be flagged as bad when it isn't? > Usual scenario for this is > a strong cold front just passed through your area. > If your wind suddenly > shits 180 degrees and temperature/dewpoint plummet, > the analysis and other > stations (possibly on the other side of the front) > are going to look out of > whack. There's no way for the algorithm to know > there's a front there. Data > quality should be looked at over a several day > period to get enough > observations to say "hey, there's something wrong > here". > > So, how is this data useful and what is "bad"? > > 1.) If the same weather variable (let's say wind) is > getting flagged for > days on end, chances are you have a bad instrument > or it needs to be > calibrated. The three biggest mistakes of home > weather station users are: > forgetting to set the barometer to their elevation, > not using a compass to > align the wind direction, and placing the > temperature sensor where it's > going to receive direct sunlight. The third item can > be avoided for those > who purchased an aspirated housing (such as the one > Davis offers). The > barometer issue can be corrected by calling the > local NWS office or news > and > giving them your location and asking for an > altimeter reading. > > 2.) So what do I consider "bad" (again these would > be consistent over a > couple days)? > a. Pressure > 2mb off > b. Temperature > 2 degrees (potential) > c. Dewpoint > 3 degrees (potential) > d. Wind Direction > 30 degrees > e. Wind Speed > 5 mph > > So looking at your station (again I only have a > day's data and I KNOW a > front plowed through there yesterday).... > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW > PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * > (DEG F) * (DEG F) > * (DEG) * (KNT) > > 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 > *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77)*-2.2( > 3.3)* -42(23.3)*-0.1(1.62) > > The numbers above are showing you the mean error for > the day (positive is > too high/warm, negative too low/cold) and the > standard deviation in > parenthesis. > > Barometer: Mean error 1.21 (STD 0.22)....given > there's a front, this is > right on the money > Temperature. Running a bit high, but watch for a few > days. > Your dewpoint is running rather low and standard > deviation of 3.3 is large. > This could be front induced, but if this number > continues for a few days, I > would recommend checking the sensor. The NWS has a > station right nearby > http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?stn=KTTS&n=24&code=d > (note the times are in > greenwich mean time, but the one at the bottom is > current). You can check > your data against it. > Your wind direction seems to be the most in error. > Make sure you aligned > the > wind sensor with a compass as shown in your weather > station manual. > > Hope this helps! > Evan > NWS Springfield, MO > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garret > Petersen" > > > > To: "Discussion of data quality issues" > ; > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:56 PM > > Subject: Re: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality > report for 2005-01-16 > > > > > >> I don't understand how the quality report can be > >> justified? How can a weather model tell that my > >> weather station is in error? Maybe the model is > in > >> error. Maybe the weather stations around me are > wrong > >> and mine is right? Lots of specualtion. > >> > >> Garret > >> > >> > >> --- Harold Lemon wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> You are not alone, Lyle. I just joined and I am > >>> having the same problem trying > >>> to figure it out. Maybe someone could provide > an > >>> explanation in layman's terms > >>> for us analytically-challenged as to what's > good, > >>> bad, and downright > >>> unacceptable. Thanks. > >>> > >>> Harold > >>> CW3109 > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "EasyLyle" > > >>> To: > >>> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:54 PM > >>> Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report > for > >>> 2005-01-16 > >>> > >>> > >>> Being a newbie to the CWOP group I cannot > decipher > >>> what you are trying to > >>> tell me in the attached report. I've read and > >>> reread the material supplied, > >>> been to a dozen plus urls. > >>> > >>> Its probably simple, but being German, I'm > sometimes > >>> thick headed! > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Lyle_R > >>> > >>> Lyle R. Schultz, > >>> 513 Twin Lakes Drive > >>> Titusville, FL 32780 > >>> > >>> 321-917-8724 > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Weather Quality > >>> [mailto:weather-qc@nospam.gladstonefamily.net] > >>> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:06 PM > >>> To: EasyLyle@cfl.rr.com > >>> Subject: Weather data quality report for > 2005-01-16 > >>> > >>> > >>> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP > * > >>> DEW PNT * DD * > >>> FF > >>> * (MB) * (DEG F) > * > === message truncated === ===== Garret __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From hlemon22 at mindspring.com Tue Jan 18 02:50:11 2005 From: hlemon22 at mindspring.com (Harold Lemon) Date: Tue Jan 18 02:53:34 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Fw: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 Message-ID: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome> I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what is going on with my station. I have included the reports below for 01-16-2005 and 01-17-2005. I compared the barometer readings with OAK, SFO, SJO, and HWD and don't appear to be more than .02 or .03 inches difference between them most of the time. I know I have a problem with dewpoint. The humidity is always about 20% higher than everyone else around me but, don't know if it is a problem with the sensor or where it's located. Where the wind is concerned, I calibrated the sensor with a compass so I don't understand why this is showing up in error. Also, I am at 10 ft. elevation and set my barometer with HWD which is at 46 ft. elevation. If their barometric pressure is at 30.30 in., should it be the same for my location or do I need to adjust it differently? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weather Quality" To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:05 PM Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(0.06)* 52(-1.5)*48.9(-8.1)* 304( 129)*5.21(-3.1) 16-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 51(-2.6)*48.5(-7.1)* 289( 135)*0.87( 1.2) 16-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)*48.8(-7.4)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0131 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)* 49(-7.7)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-1.6)*48.3(-6.9)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0216 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0231 CW3109 *1028(-0.4)* 50(-3.4)*49.2(-8.1)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 49(-2.4)*47.9(-6.8)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*48.2(-6.6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0315 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*47.9(-6.8)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0345 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 1816 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 48(0.09)*47.5(-6.6)* 262(-136)*2.61(-1.4) 16-JAN-2005 1846 CW3109 *1030(-0.5)* 49(-0.9)*47.9( -7)* 278(-152)*6.08(-4.9) 16-JAN-2005 1901 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 50(1.61)*48.6(-7.8)* 253( 177)*4.34(-2.9) 16-JAN-2005 1916 CW3109 *1030(-0.2)* 51(0.61)*49.3(-8.5)* 303( 127)*1.74(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 1931 CW3109 *1030(0.01)* 51(0.61)* 49(-8.2)* 191(-121)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 1946 CW3109 *1029(0.21)* 52(-0.4)*49.5(-8.6)* 183(-113)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 2001 CW3109 *1029(-0.0)* 53(1.11)*50.1(-8.5)* 210(55.7)*2.61(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 2015 CW3109 *1029(0.35)* 54(0.11)*50.5(-8.9)* 189(76.7)*4.34(-1.9) 16-JAN-2005 2031 CW3109 *1028(0.72)* 54(0.11)*49.9(-8.2)* 176(89.7)*1.74( 0.7) 16-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* 313( -38)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2116 CW3109 *1028(-0.0)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* 232(43.5)*0.87(1.19) 16-JAN-2005 2130 CW3109 *1028(0.16)* 56(-0.0)*50.9(-8.5)* 339( -64)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1027(0.61)* 56(-0.0)*50.6(-8.2)* 282(-6.5)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2200 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56( 1.7)*50.6( -8)* 329( -22)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 2216 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 57( 0.7)*51.2(-8.6)* 327( -20)*4.34(-2.9) 16-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 56(1.09)*49.9(-7.3)* 312(-4.8)*5.21(-3.8) 16-JAN-2005 2246 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.09)*51.2(-8.6)* 321( -14)*5.21(-3.8) 16-JAN-2005 2300 CW3109 *1027(-0.4)* 57(0.75)*50.9(-6.9)* 333(18.3)*1.74(0.65) 16-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* 39(12.3)*4.34( -2) 16-JAN-2005 2330 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* 338(13.3)*1.74(0.65) 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.2(-6.4)* 14(37.3)*4.34( -2) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.3(0.33)*-2.1( 1.7)*-5.9(1.54)*69.6(77.3)*0.76( 1.7) 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. Graphs: http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C3109 For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ To discuss, sign up to WXQC at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc To stop this email, just click the link http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=8cb3915283 Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-17 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.1)* 57(-0.2)*50.2(-6.6)* 314(46.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0001 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.5(-6.9)* 271(89.9)*5.21(-3.3) 17-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.9( -7)* 326(34.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0031 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56(0.79)*50.6(-6.7)* 283(77.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0046 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 56(0.79)*50.9( -7)* 278(82.9)*2.61(-0.7) 17-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 56(-1.4)*51.2(-7.1)* 216( 158)*1.74(-0.6) 17-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 55(-0.4)*50.9(-6.7)* 0(31.1)* 0(1.12) 17-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1027(0.02)* 54(0.59)*51.1( -7)* 0(31.1)* 0(1.12) 17-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 54(-2.7)*50.8(-6.8)* 0(79.6)* 0(0.68) 17-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-0.7)*50.3(-6.3)* 0(79.6)* 0(0.68) 17-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-1.5)*49.8(-6.3)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0316 CW3109 *1027(-0.6)* 52(-1.5)* 50(-6.6)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1027(-0.8)* 52(-1.5)*50.3(-6.9)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0346 CW3109 *1027(-0.7)* 51(-0.5)*49.6(-6.2)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 57(-0.9)*53.5(-6.2)* 217(97.9)*1.74(-0.3) 17-JAN-2005 2115 CW3109 *1026(-0.0)* 58( -2)*53.8(-6.5)* 226(88.9)*1.74(-0.3) 17-JAN-2005 2131 CW3109 *1026(0.28)* 59( -3)*54.2(-6.8)* 282(32.9)*4.34(-2.9) 17-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1026(0.52)* 59(-3.1)*53.8(-6.6)* 295(19.9)*4.34(-2.9) 17-JAN-2005 2201 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 59(-1.9)*54.8(-7.1)* 327(-0.9)*5.21(-2.4) 17-JAN-2005 2215 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* 323(3.12)*6.95(-4.1) 17-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* 303(23.1)*4.34(-1.5) 17-JAN-2005 2245 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*53.8(-6.3)* 294(32.1)*5.21(-2.4) 17-JAN-2005 2301 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* 316(7.25)*5.21(-1.7) 17-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1026(-0.4)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.8)* 353( -40)*4.34(-0.5) 17-JAN-2005 2331 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* 330( -17)*4.34(-0.5) 17-JAN-2005 2346 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.7)* 312( 1.4)*1.74(2.08) 17-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.4( 0.3)*-1.3(1.01)*-4.8(1.84)* 23( 112)*0.07(1.33) From Evan.Bookbinder at noaa.gov Tue Jan 18 09:52:24 2005 From: Evan.Bookbinder at noaa.gov (Evan Bookbinder) Date: Tue Jan 18 09:56:10 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 In-Reply-To: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome> References: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome> Message-ID: <41ED22A8.7080207@noaa.gov> Harold, note that the barometer reading in the report is rounded to the nearest whole millibar. Your numbers are WELL within tolerance. Absolutely nothing to worry about. My concern with the FSL QC routine is whether that millibar conversion is just a straight inches of mercury to millibar converstion or if it's actually using temperatures to calculate true "sea level pressure" as the NWS uses. This could also explain the small degree of error you are seeing, but as a whole, it looks great. Your dewpoint sensor definitely is having problems (which of course plays directly into relative humidity). Your error is averaging -6 to -7, meaning that your dewpoint is running much too warm. So I have several questions for you...what manufacturer of instrument do you have? where is the instrument sited on your property and what type of vegetation/etc...is beneath it? Does your temperature/dewpoint set have a fan aspiration? I'm concerned here because there are a number of "bad" weather stations on the market that I really would not recommend to weather hobbyists or professionals and the quality isn't sufficient for your own needs, let alone the CWOP network. 6-7 degree errors on the dewpoint are of course unacceptable, and usually there's little to blame outside of pure instrument error/design with that measurement, but I'm curious to see what you've got going on. As for your winds, they appear to be light and variable (generally < 5 mph). The QC report would really only be of assett on a day where everyone has a steady wind (say west at 10-15 mph) and true errors can be noted. Evan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Lemon" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:50 AM Subject: [wxqc] Fw: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what is going on with my station. I have included the reports below for 01-16-2005 and 01-17-2005. I compared the barometer readings with OAK, SFO, SJO, and HWD and don't appear to be more than .02 or .03 inches difference between them most of the time. I know I have a problem with dewpoint. The humidity is always about 20% higher than everyone else around me but, don't know if it is a problem with the sensor or where it's located. Where the wind is concerned, I calibrated the sensor with a compass so I don't understand why this is showing up in error. Also, I am at 10 ft. elevation and set my barometer with HWD which is at 46 ft. elevation. If their barometric pressure is at 30.30 in., should it be the same for my location or do I need to adjust it differently? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weather Quality" To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:05 PM Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(0.06)* 52(-1.5)*48.9(-8.1)* 304( 129)*5.21(-3.1) 16-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 51(-2.6)*48.5(-7.1)* 289( 135)*0.87( 1.2) 16-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)*48.8(-7.4)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0131 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)* 49(-7.7)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-1.6)*48.3(-6.9)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0216 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0231 CW3109 *1028(-0.4)* 50(-3.4)*49.2(-8.1)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 49(-2.4)*47.9(-6.8)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*48.2(-6.6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0315 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*47.9(-6.8)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0345 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 1816 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 48(0.09)*47.5(-6.6)* 262(-136)*2.61(-1.4) 16-JAN-2005 1846 CW3109 *1030(-0.5)* 49(-0.9)*47.9( -7)* 278(-152)*6.08(-4.9) 16-JAN-2005 1901 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 50(1.61)*48.6(-7.8)* 253( 177)*4.34(-2.9) 16-JAN-2005 1916 CW3109 *1030(-0.2)* 51(0.61)*49.3(-8.5)* 303( 127)*1.74(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 1931 CW3109 *1030(0.01)* 51(0.61)* 49(-8.2)* 191(-121)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 1946 CW3109 *1029(0.21)* 52(-0.4)*49.5(-8.6)* 183(-113)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 2001 CW3109 *1029(-0.0)* 53(1.11)*50.1(-8.5)* 210(55.7)*2.61(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 2015 CW3109 *1029(0.35)* 54(0.11)*50.5(-8.9)* 189(76.7)*4.34(-1.9) 16-JAN-2005 2031 CW3109 *1028(0.72)* 54(0.11)*49.9(-8.2)* 176(89.7)*1.74( 0.7) 16-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* 313( -38)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2116 CW3109 *1028(-0.0)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* 232(43.5)*0.87(1.19) 16-JAN-2005 2130 CW3109 *1028(0.16)* 56(-0.0)*50.9(-8.5)* 339( -64)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1027(0.61)* 56(-0.0)*50.6(-8.2)* 282(-6.5)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2200 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56( 1.7)*50.6( -8)* 329( -22)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 2216 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 57( 0.7)*51.2(-8.6)* 327( -20)*4.34(-2.9) 16-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 56(1.09)*49.9(-7.3)* 312(-4.8)*5.21(-3.8) 16-JAN-2005 2246 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.09)*51.2(-8.6)* 321( -14)*5.21(-3.8) 16-JAN-2005 2300 CW3109 *1027(-0.4)* 57(0.75)*50.9(-6.9)* 333(18.3)*1.74(0.65) 16-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* 39(12.3)*4.34( -2) 16-JAN-2005 2330 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* 338(13.3)*1.74(0.65) 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.2(-6.4)* 14(37.3)*4.34( -2) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.3(0.33)*-2.1( 1.7)*-5.9(1.54)*69.6(77.3)*0.76( 1.7) 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. Graphs: http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C3109 For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ To discuss, sign up to WXQC at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc To stop this email, just click the link http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=8cb3915283 Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-17 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.1)* 57(-0.2)*50.2(-6.6)* 314(46.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0001 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.5(-6.9)* 271(89.9)*5.21(-3.3) 17-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.9( -7)* 326(34.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0031 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56(0.79)*50.6(-6.7)* 283(77.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0046 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 56(0.79)*50.9( -7)* 278(82.9)*2.61(-0.7) 17-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 56(-1.4)*51.2(-7.1)* 216( 158)*1.74(-0.6) 17-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 55(-0.4)*50.9(-6.7)* 0(31.1)* 0(1.12) 17-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1027(0.02)* 54(0.59)*51.1( -7)* 0(31.1)* 0(1.12) 17-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 54(-2.7)*50.8(-6.8)* 0(79.6)* 0(0.68) 17-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-0.7)*50.3(-6.3)* 0(79.6)* 0(0.68) 17-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-1.5)*49.8(-6.3)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0316 CW3109 *1027(-0.6)* 52(-1.5)* 50(-6.6)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1027(-0.8)* 52(-1.5)*50.3(-6.9)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0346 CW3109 *1027(-0.7)* 51(-0.5)*49.6(-6.2)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 57(-0.9)*53.5(-6.2)* 217(97.9)*1.74(-0.3) 17-JAN-2005 2115 CW3109 *1026(-0.0)* 58( -2)*53.8(-6.5)* 226(88.9)*1.74(-0.3) 17-JAN-2005 2131 CW3109 *1026(0.28)* 59( -3)*54.2(-6.8)* 282(32.9)*4.34(-2.9) 17-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1026(0.52)* 59(-3.1)*53.8(-6.6)* 295(19.9)*4.34(-2.9) 17-JAN-2005 2201 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 59(-1.9)*54.8(-7.1)* 327(-0.9)*5.21(-2.4) 17-JAN-2005 2215 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* 323(3.12)*6.95(-4.1) 17-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* 303(23.1)*4.34(-1.5) 17-JAN-2005 2245 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*53.8(-6.3)* 294(32.1)*5.21(-2.4) 17-JAN-2005 2301 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* 316(7.25)*5.21(-1.7) 17-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1026(-0.4)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.8)* 353( -40)*4.34(-0.5) 17-JAN-2005 2331 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* 330( -17)*4.34(-0.5) 17-JAN-2005 2346 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.7)* 312( 1.4)*1.74(2.08) 17-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.4( 0.3)*-1.3(1.01)*-4.8(1.84)* 23( 112)*0.07(1.33) _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Tue Jan 18 15:32:01 2005 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Tue Jan 18 15:32:16 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 In-Reply-To: <41ED22A8.7080207@noaa.gov> References: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome> <41ED22A8.7080207@noaa.gov> Message-ID: All, Evan's done an excellent job of explaining many of the basics of the MADIS QC processing, and addressing the particular issues with Lyle and Harold's data. I'd like to add a few comments that may help people understand our QC and how to use the results. There's always going to be non-zero "error", even if a station is perfect -- all this really is is the difference between the observation and the estimated value at the location of the station in question as calculated by taking the observations at 8 surrounding stations and doing an analysis (or interpolation). When we're looking for bad stations we look at the pass/fail results of the QC, not just the errors. We publish QC summary messages (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) for the CWOP/APRSWXNET and all the other networks that we have at: http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_messages.html. Note that the daily, weekly and monthly summaries *only* contain those stations and variables that have failed 25% or more of the time during the period being covered. As a result, none of Lyle or Harold's variables are included in our most recent weekly summary (covers 1/8 - 1/14). A couple more comments on your data: Lyle - Even though your dewpoint errors on 1/16 seemed to be high, not one of your dewpoint obs failed the QC. "High" errors aren't necessarily bad. Harold - Even though your dewpoint didn't fail 25% of the time in the 1/8-1/14 period, it did fail 19% of the time -- this probably does bear further examination. Since your temperature didn't fail once during the week, this probably isn't a shielding issue. I don't believe the QC pass/fail results are provided in Philip's summaries. This would be a good addition, at least for the daily summary line, and might help people know what should or shouldn't be looked into any deeper. Also note that if your errors stay relatively constant over time, you could use the average of your daily errors for, say, a week to calibrate your barometer. Evan: The CWOP/APRSWXNET pressure variable that gets reported to us is altimeter, and our analysis and QC are done on that variable without any conversions. Sea level pressure is done separately. Thanks, Mike On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Evan Bookbinder wrote: > Harold, note that the barometer reading in the report is rounded to the > nearest whole millibar. Your numbers are WELL within tolerance. Absolutely > nothing to worry about. My concern with the FSL QC routine is whether that > millibar conversion is just a straight inches of mercury to millibar > converstion or if it's actually using temperatures to calculate true "sea > level pressure" as the NWS uses. This could also explain the small degree of > error you are seeing, but as a whole, it looks great. > > Your dewpoint sensor definitely is having problems (which of course plays > directly into relative humidity). Your error is averaging -6 to -7, meaning > that your dewpoint is running much too warm. So I have several questions for > you...what manufacturer of instrument do you have? where is the instrument > sited on your property and what type of vegetation/etc...is beneath it? Does > your temperature/dewpoint set have a fan aspiration? I'm concerned here > because there are a number of "bad" weather stations on the market that I > really would not recommend to weather hobbyists or professionals and the > quality isn't sufficient for your own needs, let alone the CWOP network. 6-7 > degree errors on the dewpoint are of course unacceptable, and usually there's > little to blame outside of pure instrument error/design with that > measurement, but I'm curious to see what you've got going on. > > As for your winds, they appear to be light and variable (generally < 5 mph). > The QC report would really only be of assett on a day where everyone has a > steady wind (say west at 10-15 mph) and true errors can be noted. > > Evan > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Lemon" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:50 AM > Subject: [wxqc] Fw: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 > > > > I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what is going on with my > station. > I have included the reports below for 01-16-2005 and 01-17-2005. I compared > the > barometer readings with OAK, SFO, SJO, and HWD and don't appear to be more > than > .02 or .03 inches difference between them most of the time. I know I have a > problem with dewpoint. The humidity is always about 20% higher than everyone > else around me but, don't know if it is a problem with the sensor or where > it's > located. Where the wind is concerned, I calibrated the sensor with a compass > so > I don't understand why this is showing up in error. > > Also, I am at 10 ft. elevation and set my barometer with HWD which is at 46 > ft. > elevation. If their barometric pressure is at 30.30 in., should it be the > same > for my location or do I need to adjust it differently? > > Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. > > Harold > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weather Quality" > > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:05 PM > Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 > > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 16-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(0.06)* 52(-1.5)*48.9(-8.1)* 304( > 129)*5.21(-3.1) > 16-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 51(-2.6)*48.5(-7.1)* 289( 135)*0.87( > 1.2) > 16-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)*48.8(-7.4)* 0(81.2)* > 0(2.07) > 16-JAN-2005 0131 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)* 49(-7.7)* 0(81.2)* > 0(2.07) > 16-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-1.6)*48.3(-6.9)* 0(81.2)* > 0(2.07) > 16-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0216 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0231 CW3109 *1028(-0.4)* 50(-3.4)*49.2(-8.1)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 49(-2.4)*47.9(-6.8)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*48.2(-6.6)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 0315 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*47.9(-6.8)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 0345 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 1816 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 48(0.09)*47.5(-6.6)* > 262(-136)*2.61(-1.4) > 16-JAN-2005 1846 CW3109 *1030(-0.5)* 49(-0.9)*47.9( -7)* > 278(-152)*6.08(-4.9) > 16-JAN-2005 1901 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 50(1.61)*48.6(-7.8)* 253( > 177)*4.34(-2.9) > 16-JAN-2005 1916 CW3109 *1030(-0.2)* 51(0.61)*49.3(-8.5)* 303( > 127)*1.74(-0.2) > 16-JAN-2005 1931 CW3109 *1030(0.01)* 51(0.61)* 49(-8.2)* > 191(-121)*2.61(-1.1) > 16-JAN-2005 1946 CW3109 *1029(0.21)* 52(-0.4)*49.5(-8.6)* > 183(-113)*2.61(-1.1) > 16-JAN-2005 2001 CW3109 *1029(-0.0)* 53(1.11)*50.1(-8.5)* > 210(55.7)*2.61(-0.2) > 16-JAN-2005 2015 CW3109 *1029(0.35)* 54(0.11)*50.5(-8.9)* > 189(76.7)*4.34(-1.9) > 16-JAN-2005 2031 CW3109 *1028(0.72)* 54(0.11)*49.9(-8.2)* 176(89.7)*1.74( > 0.7) > 16-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* > 313( -38)*4.34(-2.3) > 16-JAN-2005 2116 CW3109 *1028(-0.0)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* > 232(43.5)*0.87(1.19) > 16-JAN-2005 2130 CW3109 *1028(0.16)* 56(-0.0)*50.9(-8.5)* > 339( -64)*4.34(-2.3) > 16-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1027(0.61)* 56(-0.0)*50.6(-8.2)* > 282(-6.5)*4.34(-2.3) > 16-JAN-2005 2200 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56( 1.7)*50.6( -8)* > 329( -22)*2.61(-1.1) > 16-JAN-2005 2216 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 57( 0.7)*51.2(-8.6)* > 327( -20)*4.34(-2.9) > 16-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 56(1.09)*49.9(-7.3)* > 312(-4.8)*5.21(-3.8) > 16-JAN-2005 2246 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.09)*51.2(-8.6)* > 321( -14)*5.21(-3.8) > 16-JAN-2005 2300 CW3109 *1027(-0.4)* 57(0.75)*50.9(-6.9)* > 333(18.3)*1.74(0.65) > 16-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* > 39(12.3)*4.34( -2) > 16-JAN-2005 2330 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* > 338(13.3)*1.74(0.65) > 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.2(-6.4)* > 14(37.3)*4.34( -2) > 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.3(0.33)*-2.1( 1.7)*-5.9(1.54)*69.6(77.3)*0.76( > 1.7) > > 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. > > Graphs: > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C3109 > > For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ > To discuss, sign up to WXQC at > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > To stop this email, just click the link > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=8cb3915283 > > Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-17 > > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.1)* 57(-0.2)*50.2(-6.6)* > 314(46.9)*4.34(-2.5) > 17-JAN-2005 0001 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.5(-6.9)* > 271(89.9)*5.21(-3.3) > 17-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.9( -7)* > 326(34.9)*4.34(-2.5) > 17-JAN-2005 0031 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56(0.79)*50.6(-6.7)* > 283(77.9)*4.34(-2.5) > 17-JAN-2005 0046 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 56(0.79)*50.9( -7)* > 278(82.9)*2.61(-0.7) > 17-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 56(-1.4)*51.2(-7.1)* 216( > 158)*1.74(-0.6) > 17-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 55(-0.4)*50.9(-6.7)* 0(31.1)* > 0(1.12) > 17-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1027(0.02)* 54(0.59)*51.1( -7)* 0(31.1)* > 0(1.12) > 17-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 54(-2.7)*50.8(-6.8)* 0(79.6)* > 0(0.68) > 17-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-0.7)*50.3(-6.3)* 0(79.6)* > 0(0.68) > 17-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-1.5)*49.8(-6.3)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 0316 CW3109 *1027(-0.6)* 52(-1.5)* 50(-6.6)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1027(-0.8)* 52(-1.5)*50.3(-6.9)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 0346 CW3109 *1027(-0.7)* 51(-0.5)*49.6(-6.2)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 57(-0.9)*53.5(-6.2)* > 217(97.9)*1.74(-0.3) > 17-JAN-2005 2115 CW3109 *1026(-0.0)* 58( -2)*53.8(-6.5)* > 226(88.9)*1.74(-0.3) > 17-JAN-2005 2131 CW3109 *1026(0.28)* 59( -3)*54.2(-6.8)* > 282(32.9)*4.34(-2.9) > 17-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1026(0.52)* 59(-3.1)*53.8(-6.6)* > 295(19.9)*4.34(-2.9) > 17-JAN-2005 2201 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 59(-1.9)*54.8(-7.1)* > 327(-0.9)*5.21(-2.4) > 17-JAN-2005 2215 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* > 323(3.12)*6.95(-4.1) > 17-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* > 303(23.1)*4.34(-1.5) > 17-JAN-2005 2245 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*53.8(-6.3)* > 294(32.1)*5.21(-2.4) > 17-JAN-2005 2301 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* > 316(7.25)*5.21(-1.7) > 17-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1026(-0.4)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.8)* > 353( -40)*4.34(-0.5) > 17-JAN-2005 2331 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* > 330( -17)*4.34(-0.5) > 17-JAN-2005 2346 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.7)* 312( > 1.4)*1.74(2.08) > 17-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.4( 0.3)*-1.3(1.01)*-4.8(1.84)* 23( > 112)*0.07(1.33) > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From pat at sklenar.info Tue Jan 18 15:58:48 2005 From: pat at sklenar.info (Pat Sklenar) Date: Tue Jan 18 15:58:53 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality reports In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2005118155848.904909@8992TPRN> Mike, et al, Good afternoon! I'm learning a lot by "listening in" on this thread. :) But how do these QC reports relate (if at all) to the QC column shown on MesoWest? Secondly, Mike, you mention that NOAA gets its "pressure" as altimeter. I've noticed that MesoWest shows my elevation as 174', even tho I have both my Davis Vantage Pro Console and my Weather Display software configured for an elevation of 237' (determined by GPS). Any idea why they show a different elevation than I've provided? I wonder if that could account for the constant, and fairly even, discrepancy I see in the CWOP QC Pressure graph for my station (AR651) - http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=AR651 Thanks, pat---- From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Tue Jan 18 16:10:20 2005 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Tue Jan 18 16:10:32 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality reports In-Reply-To: <2005118155848.904909@8992TPRN> References: <2005118155848.904909@8992TPRN> Message-ID: Pat, MesoWest does their QC separately from MADIS, so whatever you see on their website relates to their QC (don't ask me what the differences are, I don't know that much about what they do). MesoWest gets their elevation from our station table, which apparently needs updating: Russ - please set AR561's elevation to 72.2376 meters. Yep, this could very well result in the offset you see in the altimeter QC results. Everyone out there - we are *very* sensitive to elevation errors, both for pressure and for temperature. You can check what we have for your elevation at: http://www.wxqa.com/APRSWXNETStation.txt [Note that our units are meters (meters = feet * .3048).] If you've got better info than shows up here, please send it to: Russell.B.Chadwick@noaa.gov Thanks, Mike On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Pat Sklenar wrote: > Mike, et al, > > Good afternoon! I'm learning a lot by "listening in" on this thread. :) But how do these QC reports relate (if at all) to the QC column shown on MesoWest? > > Secondly, Mike, you mention that NOAA gets its "pressure" as altimeter. I've noticed that MesoWest shows my elevation as 174', even tho I have both my Davis Vantage Pro Console and my Weather Display software configured for an elevation of 237' (determined by GPS). Any idea why they show a different elevation than I've provided? I wonder if that could account for the constant, and fairly even, discrepancy I see in the CWOP QC Pressure graph for my station (AR651) - > > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=AR651 > > Thanks, > pat---- > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From pat at sklenar.info Tue Jan 18 16:40:26 2005 From: pat at sklenar.info (Patrick R. Sklenar) Date: Tue Jan 18 16:40:38 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality reports In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2005118164026.837688@IDEQ_200T> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:10:20 +0000 (GMT), Michael F Barth wrote: >?Russ - please set AR561's elevation to 72.2376 meters. Please note, my station is AR651 ... six five one. The elevation comes out right, 237 feet = 72.2376m. Thanks! >?If you've got better info than shows up here, please send it to: Do you want info for the other columns? For instance, I am in Eastern time zone (GMT-5), my station type is surface, etc. Thank you, pat---- From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Tue Jan 18 16:44:29 2005 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Tue Jan 18 16:44:41 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality reports In-Reply-To: <2005118164026.837688@IDEQ_200T> References: <2005118164026.837688@IDEQ_200T> Message-ID: Pat, Anything else you want to change in the station table should be sent to Russ as well. Mike On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Patrick R. Sklenar wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:10:20 +0000 (GMT), Michael F Barth wrote: > >> ?Russ - please set AR561's elevation to 72.2376 meters. > > Please note, my station is AR651 ... six five one. The elevation comes out right, 237 feet = 72.2376m. > > Thanks! > > >> ?If you've got better info than shows up here, please send it to: > > Do you want info for the other columns? For instance, I am in Eastern time zone (GMT-5), my station type is surface, etc. > > Thank you, > pat---- > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From sam at wa4phy.net Tue Jan 18 17:12:54 2005 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Tue Jan 18 17:12:59 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality reports In-Reply-To: References: <2005118164026.837688@IDEQ_200T> Message-ID: <41ED89E6.3000002@wa4phy.net> Definately off topic, but interesting nonetheless.. I grabbed the "list" of stations, and imported them into Excell, as I was curious about all the elevations. The thing that struck me about all the data was the number of stations below sea level, (4) and the number of stations above 2000m. (a whole bunch). Top honors goes to CW1929 who is sitting at 10,892.3' in Leadville, CO. Apologize for the "noise" but I couldn't resist! -- Snowman From hlemon22 at mindspring.com Wed Jan 19 00:38:46 2005 From: hlemon22 at mindspring.com (Harold Lemon) Date: Wed Jan 19 00:39:51 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 References: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome> <41ED22A8.7080207@noaa.gov> Message-ID: <002f01c4fde9$2cfb71e0$736df304@lharhome> Evan, Thanks a lot for the explanation. I'm glad to know that some of my data was acceptable. My station is a Peet Bros. Ultimeter 2100 with their outdoor temp/humidity sensor, no shielding, and no fan aspiration. To protect it from the sun, wind, and rain, the best place I could find was on the north side of the house under the patio cover mounted about a foot from the bottom of the cover. The patio is cement. We have had a lot of rain here lately so there is a lot of moisture around that part of the house and probably to make matters worse, I'm about 150 feet from a small creek. About the only thing I can try to do is move the sensor to another location which may not be as protected or get a sensor that's shielded. Thanks again for your help. Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Bookbinder" To: "Discussion of data quality issues" Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 Harold, note that the barometer reading in the report is rounded to the nearest whole millibar. Your numbers are WELL within tolerance. Absolutely nothing to worry about. My concern with the FSL QC routine is whether that millibar conversion is just a straight inches of mercury to millibar converstion or if it's actually using temperatures to calculate true "sea level pressure" as the NWS uses. This could also explain the small degree of error you are seeing, but as a whole, it looks great. Your dewpoint sensor definitely is having problems (which of course plays directly into relative humidity). Your error is averaging -6 to -7, meaning that your dewpoint is running much too warm. So I have several questions for you...what manufacturer of instrument do you have? where is the instrument sited on your property and what type of vegetation/etc...is beneath it? Does your temperature/dewpoint set have a fan aspiration? I'm concerned here because there are a number of "bad" weather stations on the market that I really would not recommend to weather hobbyists or professionals and the quality isn't sufficient for your own needs, let alone the CWOP network. 6-7 degree errors on the dewpoint are of course unacceptable, and usually there's little to blame outside of pure instrument error/design with that measurement, but I'm curious to see what you've got going on. As for your winds, they appear to be light and variable (generally < 5 mph). The QC report would really only be of assett on a day where everyone has a steady wind (say west at 10-15 mph) and true errors can be noted. Evan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Lemon" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:50 AM Subject: [wxqc] Fw: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what is going on with my station. I have included the reports below for 01-16-2005 and 01-17-2005. I compared the barometer readings with OAK, SFO, SJO, and HWD and don't appear to be more than .02 or .03 inches difference between them most of the time. I know I have a problem with dewpoint. The humidity is always about 20% higher than everyone else around me but, don't know if it is a problem with the sensor or where it's located. Where the wind is concerned, I calibrated the sensor with a compass so I don't understand why this is showing up in error. Also, I am at 10 ft. elevation and set my barometer with HWD which is at 46 ft. elevation. If their barometric pressure is at 30.30 in., should it be the same for my location or do I need to adjust it differently? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weather Quality" To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:05 PM Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(0.06)* 52(-1.5)*48.9(-8.1)* 304( 129)*5.21(-3.1) 16-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 51(-2.6)*48.5(-7.1)* 289( 135)*0.87( 1.2) 16-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)*48.8(-7.4)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0131 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)* 49(-7.7)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-1.6)*48.3(-6.9)* 0(81.2)* 0(2.07) 16-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0216 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0231 CW3109 *1028(-0.4)* 50(-3.4)*49.2(-8.1)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 49(-2.4)*47.9(-6.8)* 0(41.1)* 0( 1.8) 16-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*48.2(-6.6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0315 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*47.9(-6.8)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 0345 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* 0(1.16) 16-JAN-2005 1816 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 48(0.09)*47.5(-6.6)* 262(-136)*2.61(-1.4) 16-JAN-2005 1846 CW3109 *1030(-0.5)* 49(-0.9)*47.9( -7)* 278(-152)*6.08(-4.9) 16-JAN-2005 1901 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 50(1.61)*48.6(-7.8)* 253( 177)*4.34(-2.9) 16-JAN-2005 1916 CW3109 *1030(-0.2)* 51(0.61)*49.3(-8.5)* 303( 127)*1.74(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 1931 CW3109 *1030(0.01)* 51(0.61)* 49(-8.2)* 191(-121)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 1946 CW3109 *1029(0.21)* 52(-0.4)*49.5(-8.6)* 183(-113)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 2001 CW3109 *1029(-0.0)* 53(1.11)*50.1(-8.5)* 210(55.7)*2.61(-0.2) 16-JAN-2005 2015 CW3109 *1029(0.35)* 54(0.11)*50.5(-8.9)* 189(76.7)*4.34(-1.9) 16-JAN-2005 2031 CW3109 *1028(0.72)* 54(0.11)*49.9(-8.2)* 176(89.7)*1.74( 0.7) 16-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* 313( -38)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2116 CW3109 *1028(-0.0)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* 232(43.5)*0.87(1.19) 16-JAN-2005 2130 CW3109 *1028(0.16)* 56(-0.0)*50.9(-8.5)* 339( -64)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1027(0.61)* 56(-0.0)*50.6(-8.2)* 282(-6.5)*4.34(-2.3) 16-JAN-2005 2200 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56( 1.7)*50.6( -8)* 329( -22)*2.61(-1.1) 16-JAN-2005 2216 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 57( 0.7)*51.2(-8.6)* 327( -20)*4.34(-2.9) 16-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 56(1.09)*49.9(-7.3)* 312(-4.8)*5.21(-3.8) 16-JAN-2005 2246 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.09)*51.2(-8.6)* 321( -14)*5.21(-3.8) 16-JAN-2005 2300 CW3109 *1027(-0.4)* 57(0.75)*50.9(-6.9)* 333(18.3)*1.74(0.65) 16-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* 39(12.3)*4.34( -2) 16-JAN-2005 2330 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* 338(13.3)*1.74(0.65) 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.2(-6.4)* 14(37.3)*4.34( -2) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.3(0.33)*-2.1( 1.7)*-5.9(1.54)*69.6(77.3)*0.76( 1.7) 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. Graphs: http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C3109 For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ To discuss, sign up to WXQC at http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc To stop this email, just click the link http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=8cb3915283 Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-17 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.1)* 57(-0.2)*50.2(-6.6)* 314(46.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0001 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.5(-6.9)* 271(89.9)*5.21(-3.3) 17-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.9( -7)* 326(34.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0031 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56(0.79)*50.6(-6.7)* 283(77.9)*4.34(-2.5) 17-JAN-2005 0046 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 56(0.79)*50.9( -7)* 278(82.9)*2.61(-0.7) 17-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 56(-1.4)*51.2(-7.1)* 216( 158)*1.74(-0.6) 17-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 55(-0.4)*50.9(-6.7)* 0(31.1)* 0(1.12) 17-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1027(0.02)* 54(0.59)*51.1( -7)* 0(31.1)* 0(1.12) 17-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 54(-2.7)*50.8(-6.8)* 0(79.6)* 0(0.68) 17-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-0.7)*50.3(-6.3)* 0(79.6)* 0(0.68) 17-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-1.5)*49.8(-6.3)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0316 CW3109 *1027(-0.6)* 52(-1.5)* 50(-6.6)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1027(-0.8)* 52(-1.5)*50.3(-6.9)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 0346 CW3109 *1027(-0.7)* 51(-0.5)*49.6(-6.2)* 0( 148)* 0(0.79) 17-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 57(-0.9)*53.5(-6.2)* 217(97.9)*1.74(-0.3) 17-JAN-2005 2115 CW3109 *1026(-0.0)* 58( -2)*53.8(-6.5)* 226(88.9)*1.74(-0.3) 17-JAN-2005 2131 CW3109 *1026(0.28)* 59( -3)*54.2(-6.8)* 282(32.9)*4.34(-2.9) 17-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1026(0.52)* 59(-3.1)*53.8(-6.6)* 295(19.9)*4.34(-2.9) 17-JAN-2005 2201 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 59(-1.9)*54.8(-7.1)* 327(-0.9)*5.21(-2.4) 17-JAN-2005 2215 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* 323(3.12)*6.95(-4.1) 17-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* 303(23.1)*4.34(-1.5) 17-JAN-2005 2245 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*53.8(-6.3)* 294(32.1)*5.21(-2.4) 17-JAN-2005 2301 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* 316(7.25)*5.21(-1.7) 17-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1026(-0.4)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.8)* 353( -40)*4.34(-0.5) 17-JAN-2005 2331 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* 330( -17)*4.34(-0.5) 17-JAN-2005 2346 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.7)* 312( 1.4)*1.74(2.08) 17-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.4( 0.3)*-1.3(1.01)*-4.8(1.84)* 23( 112)*0.07(1.33) _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From hlemon22 at mindspring.com Wed Jan 19 03:18:51 2005 From: hlemon22 at mindspring.com (Harold Lemon) Date: Wed Jan 19 03:20:56 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 References: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome><41ED22A8.7080207@noaa.gov> Message-ID: <000401c4fdff$84771120$d66af304@lharhome> Mike, Thanks a lot for the info. I have a better understanding now of what is going on and how the system works. It's only with helpful people like you and Evan that makes voluntary programs like CWOP/APRSWXNET work. I'm going to try a few things to see if I can get the dewpoint/humidity issue corrected. I believe having the pass/fail results included the summary would be a good idea. I noticed a list of nearby sites (see below) at the bottom of the graph for my station. Would these be the stations that are used in the analysis for my station? Nearby Sites AP895: 1.7 miles (Richmond, CA US: lat 37.6000, long -122.1000) C0538: 4.0 miles (Hayward, CA US: lat 37.6358, long -122.1230) KHWD: 5.2 miles (Hayward, Hayward Air Terminal, CA, United States: lat 37.6608, long -122.1180) KPAO: 9.3 miles (Palo Alto Airport, CA, United States: lat 37.4667, long -122.1170) KSQL: 11.3 miles (San Carlos Airport, CA, United States: lat 37.5167, long -122.2500) KOAK: 12.4 miles (Oakland, Metro Oakland International Airport, CA, United States: lat 37.7194, long -122.2350) AR305: 12.6 miles (Fremont, CA US: lat 37.4668, long -121.9090) KNUQ: 13.2 miles (Mountain View, Moffett Field, CA, United States: lat 37.4058, long -122.0480) AR321: 13.5 miles (W.Menlo Park, CA US: lat 37.4347, long -122.2060) AP990: 14.5 miles (Sunnyvale, CA US: lat 37.3903, long -122.0240) Thanks again. Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael F Barth" To: "Discussion of data quality issues" Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 All, Evan's done an excellent job of explaining many of the basics of the MADIS QC processing, and addressing the particular issues with Lyle and Harold's data. I'd like to add a few comments that may help people understand our QC and how to use the results. There's always going to be non-zero "error", even if a station is perfect -- all this really is is the difference between the observation and the estimated value at the location of the station in question as calculated by taking the observations at 8 surrounding stations and doing an analysis (or interpolation). When we're looking for bad stations we look at the pass/fail results of the QC, not just the errors. We publish QC summary messages (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) for the CWOP/APRSWXNET and all the other networks that we have at: http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_messages.html. Note that the daily, weekly and monthly summaries *only* contain those stations and variables that have failed 25% or more of the time during the period being covered. As a result, none of Lyle or Harold's variables are included in our most recent weekly summary (covers 1/8 - 1/14). A couple more comments on your data: Lyle - Even though your dewpoint errors on 1/16 seemed to be high, not one of your dewpoint obs failed the QC. "High" errors aren't necessarily bad. Harold - Even though your dewpoint didn't fail 25% of the time in the 1/8-1/14 period, it did fail 19% of the time -- this probably does bear further examination. Since your temperature didn't fail once during the week, this probably isn't a shielding issue. I don't believe the QC pass/fail results are provided in Philip's summaries. This would be a good addition, at least for the daily summary line, and might help people know what should or shouldn't be looked into any deeper. Also note that if your errors stay relatively constant over time, you could use the average of your daily errors for, say, a week to calibrate your barometer. Evan: The CWOP/APRSWXNET pressure variable that gets reported to us is altimeter, and our analysis and QC are done on that variable without any conversions. Sea level pressure is done separately. Thanks, Mike On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Evan Bookbinder wrote: > Harold, note that the barometer reading in the report is rounded to the > nearest whole millibar. Your numbers are WELL within tolerance. Absolutely > nothing to worry about. My concern with the FSL QC routine is whether that > millibar conversion is just a straight inches of mercury to millibar > converstion or if it's actually using temperatures to calculate true "sea > level pressure" as the NWS uses. This could also explain the small degree of > error you are seeing, but as a whole, it looks great. > > Your dewpoint sensor definitely is having problems (which of course plays > directly into relative humidity). Your error is averaging -6 to -7, meaning > that your dewpoint is running much too warm. So I have several questions for > you...what manufacturer of instrument do you have? where is the instrument > sited on your property and what type of vegetation/etc...is beneath it? Does > your temperature/dewpoint set have a fan aspiration? I'm concerned here > because there are a number of "bad" weather stations on the market that I > really would not recommend to weather hobbyists or professionals and the > quality isn't sufficient for your own needs, let alone the CWOP network. 6-7 > degree errors on the dewpoint are of course unacceptable, and usually there's > little to blame outside of pure instrument error/design with that > measurement, but I'm curious to see what you've got going on. > > As for your winds, they appear to be light and variable (generally < 5 mph). > The QC report would really only be of assett on a day where everyone has a > steady wind (say west at 10-15 mph) and true errors can be noted. > > Evan > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Lemon" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:50 AM > Subject: [wxqc] Fw: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 > > > > I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what is going on with my > station. > I have included the reports below for 01-16-2005 and 01-17-2005. I compared > the > barometer readings with OAK, SFO, SJO, and HWD and don't appear to be more > than > .02 or .03 inches difference between them most of the time. I know I have a > problem with dewpoint. The humidity is always about 20% higher than everyone > else around me but, don't know if it is a problem with the sensor or where > it's > located. Where the wind is concerned, I calibrated the sensor with a compass > so > I don't understand why this is showing up in error. > > Also, I am at 10 ft. elevation and set my barometer with HWD which is at 46 > ft. > elevation. If their barometric pressure is at 30.30 in., should it be the > same > for my location or do I need to adjust it differently? > > Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. > > Harold > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weather Quality" > > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:05 PM > Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 > > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 16-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(0.06)* 52(-1.5)*48.9(-8.1)* 304( > 129)*5.21(-3.1) > 16-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 51(-2.6)*48.5(-7.1)* 289( 135)*0.87( > 1.2) > 16-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)*48.8(-7.4)* 0(81.2)* > 0(2.07) > 16-JAN-2005 0131 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)* 49(-7.7)* 0(81.2)* > 0(2.07) > 16-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-1.6)*48.3(-6.9)* 0(81.2)* > 0(2.07) > 16-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0216 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0231 CW3109 *1028(-0.4)* 50(-3.4)*49.2(-8.1)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 49(-2.4)*47.9(-6.8)* 0(41.1)* 0( > 1.8) > 16-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*48.2(-6.6)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 0315 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*47.9(-6.8)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 0345 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* > 0(1.16) > 16-JAN-2005 1816 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 48(0.09)*47.5(-6.6)* > 262(-136)*2.61(-1.4) > 16-JAN-2005 1846 CW3109 *1030(-0.5)* 49(-0.9)*47.9( -7)* > 278(-152)*6.08(-4.9) > 16-JAN-2005 1901 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 50(1.61)*48.6(-7.8)* 253( > 177)*4.34(-2.9) > 16-JAN-2005 1916 CW3109 *1030(-0.2)* 51(0.61)*49.3(-8.5)* 303( > 127)*1.74(-0.2) > 16-JAN-2005 1931 CW3109 *1030(0.01)* 51(0.61)* 49(-8.2)* > 191(-121)*2.61(-1.1) > 16-JAN-2005 1946 CW3109 *1029(0.21)* 52(-0.4)*49.5(-8.6)* > 183(-113)*2.61(-1.1) > 16-JAN-2005 2001 CW3109 *1029(-0.0)* 53(1.11)*50.1(-8.5)* > 210(55.7)*2.61(-0.2) > 16-JAN-2005 2015 CW3109 *1029(0.35)* 54(0.11)*50.5(-8.9)* > 189(76.7)*4.34(-1.9) > 16-JAN-2005 2031 CW3109 *1028(0.72)* 54(0.11)*49.9(-8.2)* 176(89.7)*1.74( > 0.7) > 16-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* > 313( -38)*4.34(-2.3) > 16-JAN-2005 2116 CW3109 *1028(-0.0)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* > 232(43.5)*0.87(1.19) > 16-JAN-2005 2130 CW3109 *1028(0.16)* 56(-0.0)*50.9(-8.5)* > 339( -64)*4.34(-2.3) > 16-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1027(0.61)* 56(-0.0)*50.6(-8.2)* > 282(-6.5)*4.34(-2.3) > 16-JAN-2005 2200 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56( 1.7)*50.6( -8)* > 329( -22)*2.61(-1.1) > 16-JAN-2005 2216 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 57( 0.7)*51.2(-8.6)* > 327( -20)*4.34(-2.9) > 16-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 56(1.09)*49.9(-7.3)* > 312(-4.8)*5.21(-3.8) > 16-JAN-2005 2246 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.09)*51.2(-8.6)* > 321( -14)*5.21(-3.8) > 16-JAN-2005 2300 CW3109 *1027(-0.4)* 57(0.75)*50.9(-6.9)* > 333(18.3)*1.74(0.65) > 16-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* > 39(12.3)*4.34( -2) > 16-JAN-2005 2330 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* > 338(13.3)*1.74(0.65) > 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.2(-6.4)* > 14(37.3)*4.34( -2) > 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.3(0.33)*-2.1( 1.7)*-5.9(1.54)*69.6(77.3)*0.76( > 1.7) > > 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. > > Graphs: > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C3109 > > For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ > To discuss, sign up to WXQC at > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > To stop this email, just click the link > http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=8cb3915283 > > Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-17 > > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.1)* 57(-0.2)*50.2(-6.6)* > 314(46.9)*4.34(-2.5) > 17-JAN-2005 0001 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.5(-6.9)* > 271(89.9)*5.21(-3.3) > 17-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.9( -7)* > 326(34.9)*4.34(-2.5) > 17-JAN-2005 0031 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56(0.79)*50.6(-6.7)* > 283(77.9)*4.34(-2.5) > 17-JAN-2005 0046 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 56(0.79)*50.9( -7)* > 278(82.9)*2.61(-0.7) > 17-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 56(-1.4)*51.2(-7.1)* 216( > 158)*1.74(-0.6) > 17-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 55(-0.4)*50.9(-6.7)* 0(31.1)* > 0(1.12) > 17-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1027(0.02)* 54(0.59)*51.1( -7)* 0(31.1)* > 0(1.12) > 17-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 54(-2.7)*50.8(-6.8)* 0(79.6)* > 0(0.68) > 17-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-0.7)*50.3(-6.3)* 0(79.6)* > 0(0.68) > 17-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-1.5)*49.8(-6.3)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 0316 CW3109 *1027(-0.6)* 52(-1.5)* 50(-6.6)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1027(-0.8)* 52(-1.5)*50.3(-6.9)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 0346 CW3109 *1027(-0.7)* 51(-0.5)*49.6(-6.2)* 0( 148)* > 0(0.79) > 17-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 57(-0.9)*53.5(-6.2)* > 217(97.9)*1.74(-0.3) > 17-JAN-2005 2115 CW3109 *1026(-0.0)* 58( -2)*53.8(-6.5)* > 226(88.9)*1.74(-0.3) > 17-JAN-2005 2131 CW3109 *1026(0.28)* 59( -3)*54.2(-6.8)* > 282(32.9)*4.34(-2.9) > 17-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1026(0.52)* 59(-3.1)*53.8(-6.6)* > 295(19.9)*4.34(-2.9) > 17-JAN-2005 2201 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 59(-1.9)*54.8(-7.1)* > 327(-0.9)*5.21(-2.4) > 17-JAN-2005 2215 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* > 323(3.12)*6.95(-4.1) > 17-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* > 303(23.1)*4.34(-1.5) > 17-JAN-2005 2245 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*53.8(-6.3)* > 294(32.1)*5.21(-2.4) > 17-JAN-2005 2301 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* > 316(7.25)*5.21(-1.7) > 17-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1026(-0.4)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.8)* > 353( -40)*4.34(-0.5) > 17-JAN-2005 2331 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* > 330( -17)*4.34(-0.5) > 17-JAN-2005 2346 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.7)* 312( > 1.4)*1.74(2.08) > 17-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.4( 0.3)*-1.3(1.01)*-4.8(1.84)* 23( > 112)*0.07(1.33) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Wed Jan 19 15:41:03 2005 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Michael F Barth) Date: Wed Jan 19 15:41:27 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 In-Reply-To: <000401c4fdff$84771120$d66af304@lharhome> References: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome><41ED22A8.7080207@noaa.gov> <000401c4fdff$84771120$d66af304@lharhome> Message-ID: Harold, The list of stations used to QC your obs isn't predetermined, but is based on the data available at the time for each observation. Here's one example -- these stations were used to QC your dewpoint ob at 1200 GMT today. ID Network Lat Lon AP895 APRSWXNET 37.60 -122.10 UNCTY AWS 37.59 -122.02 KHWD ASOS 37.67 -122.12 OCCAL AWS 37.53 -121.92 MNLPR AWS 37.48 -122.16 HESSM AWS 37.48 -122.21 KOAK ASOS 37.73 -122.22 BELMT AWS 37.51 -122.29 Thanks, Mike On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Harold Lemon wrote: > Mike, > > Thanks a lot for the info. I have a better understanding now of what is going > on and how the system works. It's only with helpful people like you and Evan > that makes voluntary programs like CWOP/APRSWXNET work. I'm going to try a few > things to see if I can get the dewpoint/humidity issue corrected. I believe > having the pass/fail results included the summary would be a good idea. > > I noticed a list of nearby sites (see below) at the bottom of the graph for my > station. Would these be the stations that are used in the analysis for my > station? > > Nearby Sites > AP895: 1.7 miles (Richmond, CA US: lat 37.6000, long -122.1000) > C0538: 4.0 miles (Hayward, CA US: lat 37.6358, long -122.1230) > KHWD: 5.2 miles (Hayward, Hayward Air Terminal, CA, United States: lat 37.6608, > long -122.1180) > KPAO: 9.3 miles (Palo Alto Airport, CA, United States: lat 37.4667, > long -122.1170) > KSQL: 11.3 miles (San Carlos Airport, CA, United States: lat 37.5167, > long -122.2500) > KOAK: 12.4 miles (Oakland, Metro Oakland International Airport, CA, United > States: lat 37.7194, long -122.2350) > AR305: 12.6 miles (Fremont, CA US: lat 37.4668, long -121.9090) > KNUQ: 13.2 miles (Mountain View, Moffett Field, CA, United States: lat 37.4058, > long -122.0480) > AR321: 13.5 miles (W.Menlo Park, CA US: lat 37.4347, long -122.2060) > AP990: 14.5 miles (Sunnyvale, CA US: lat 37.3903, long -122.0240) > > Thanks again. > > Harold > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael F Barth" > To: "Discussion of data quality issues" > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:32 PM > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 > > > All, > > Evan's done an excellent job of explaining many of the basics of the > MADIS QC processing, and addressing the particular issues with Lyle > and Harold's data. I'd like to add a few comments that may help > people understand our QC and how to use the results. > > There's always going to be non-zero "error", even if a station is > perfect -- all this really is is the difference between the > observation and the estimated value at the location of the station in > question as calculated by taking the observations at 8 surrounding > stations and doing an analysis (or interpolation). > > When we're looking for bad stations we look at the pass/fail results > of the QC, not just the errors. We publish QC summary messages > (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) for the CWOP/APRSWXNET and all the > other networks that we have at: > > http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_messages.html. > > Note that the daily, weekly and monthly summaries *only* contain those > stations and variables that have failed 25% or more of the time > during the period being covered. As a result, none of Lyle or > Harold's variables are included in our most recent weekly summary > (covers 1/8 - 1/14). A couple more comments on your data: > > Lyle - Even though your dewpoint errors on 1/16 seemed to be high, > not one of your dewpoint obs failed the QC. "High" errors aren't > necessarily bad. > > Harold - Even though your dewpoint didn't fail 25% of the time in > the 1/8-1/14 period, it did fail 19% of the time -- this probably > does bear further examination. Since your temperature didn't > fail once during the week, this probably isn't a shielding issue. > > I don't believe the QC pass/fail results are provided in Philip's > summaries. This would be a good addition, at least for the daily > summary line, and might help people know what should or shouldn't > be looked into any deeper. > > Also note that if your errors stay relatively constant over time, > you could use the average of your daily errors for, say, a week > to calibrate your barometer. > > Evan: The CWOP/APRSWXNET pressure variable that gets reported to > us is altimeter, and our analysis and QC are done on that variable > without any conversions. Sea level pressure is done separately. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Evan Bookbinder wrote: > >> Harold, note that the barometer reading in the report is rounded to the >> nearest whole millibar. Your numbers are WELL within tolerance. Absolutely >> nothing to worry about. My concern with the FSL QC routine is whether that >> millibar conversion is just a straight inches of mercury to millibar >> converstion or if it's actually using temperatures to calculate true "sea >> level pressure" as the NWS uses. This could also explain the small degree of >> error you are seeing, but as a whole, it looks great. >> >> Your dewpoint sensor definitely is having problems (which of course plays >> directly into relative humidity). Your error is averaging -6 to -7, meaning >> that your dewpoint is running much too warm. So I have several questions for >> you...what manufacturer of instrument do you have? where is the instrument >> sited on your property and what type of vegetation/etc...is beneath it? Does >> your temperature/dewpoint set have a fan aspiration? I'm concerned here >> because there are a number of "bad" weather stations on the market that I >> really would not recommend to weather hobbyists or professionals and the >> quality isn't sufficient for your own needs, let alone the CWOP network. 6-7 >> degree errors on the dewpoint are of course unacceptable, and usually there's >> little to blame outside of pure instrument error/design with that >> measurement, but I'm curious to see what you've got going on. >> >> As for your winds, they appear to be light and variable (generally < 5 mph). >> The QC report would really only be of assett on a day where everyone has a >> steady wind (say west at 10-15 mph) and true errors can be noted. >> >> Evan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Lemon" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:50 AM >> Subject: [wxqc] Fw: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 >> >> >> >> I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what is going on with my >> station. >> I have included the reports below for 01-16-2005 and 01-17-2005. I compared >> the >> barometer readings with OAK, SFO, SJO, and HWD and don't appear to be more >> than >> .02 or .03 inches difference between them most of the time. I know I have a >> problem with dewpoint. The humidity is always about 20% higher than everyone >> else around me but, don't know if it is a problem with the sensor or where >> it's >> located. Where the wind is concerned, I calibrated the sensor with a compass >> so >> I don't understand why this is showing up in error. >> >> Also, I am at 10 ft. elevation and set my barometer with HWD which is at 46 >> ft. >> elevation. If their barometric pressure is at 30.30 in., should it be the >> same >> for my location or do I need to adjust it differently? >> >> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. >> >> Harold >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weather Quality" >> >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:05 PM >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 >> >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) >> 16-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(0.06)* 52(-1.5)*48.9(-8.1)* 304( >> 129)*5.21(-3.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 51(-2.6)*48.5(-7.1)* 289( 135)*0.87( >> 1.2) >> 16-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)*48.8(-7.4)* 0(81.2)* >> 0(2.07) >> 16-JAN-2005 0131 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)* 49(-7.7)* 0(81.2)* >> 0(2.07) >> 16-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-1.6)*48.3(-6.9)* 0(81.2)* >> 0(2.07) >> 16-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0216 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0231 CW3109 *1028(-0.4)* 50(-3.4)*49.2(-8.1)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 49(-2.4)*47.9(-6.8)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*48.2(-6.6)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 0315 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*47.9(-6.8)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 0345 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 1816 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 48(0.09)*47.5(-6.6)* >> 262(-136)*2.61(-1.4) >> 16-JAN-2005 1846 CW3109 *1030(-0.5)* 49(-0.9)*47.9( -7)* >> 278(-152)*6.08(-4.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 1901 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 50(1.61)*48.6(-7.8)* 253( >> 177)*4.34(-2.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 1916 CW3109 *1030(-0.2)* 51(0.61)*49.3(-8.5)* 303( >> 127)*1.74(-0.2) >> 16-JAN-2005 1931 CW3109 *1030(0.01)* 51(0.61)* 49(-8.2)* >> 191(-121)*2.61(-1.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 1946 CW3109 *1029(0.21)* 52(-0.4)*49.5(-8.6)* >> 183(-113)*2.61(-1.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 2001 CW3109 *1029(-0.0)* 53(1.11)*50.1(-8.5)* >> 210(55.7)*2.61(-0.2) >> 16-JAN-2005 2015 CW3109 *1029(0.35)* 54(0.11)*50.5(-8.9)* >> 189(76.7)*4.34(-1.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 2031 CW3109 *1028(0.72)* 54(0.11)*49.9(-8.2)* 176(89.7)*1.74( >> 0.7) >> 16-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* >> 313( -38)*4.34(-2.3) >> 16-JAN-2005 2116 CW3109 *1028(-0.0)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* >> 232(43.5)*0.87(1.19) >> 16-JAN-2005 2130 CW3109 *1028(0.16)* 56(-0.0)*50.9(-8.5)* >> 339( -64)*4.34(-2.3) >> 16-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1027(0.61)* 56(-0.0)*50.6(-8.2)* >> 282(-6.5)*4.34(-2.3) >> 16-JAN-2005 2200 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56( 1.7)*50.6( -8)* >> 329( -22)*2.61(-1.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 2216 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 57( 0.7)*51.2(-8.6)* >> 327( -20)*4.34(-2.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 56(1.09)*49.9(-7.3)* >> 312(-4.8)*5.21(-3.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 2246 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.09)*51.2(-8.6)* >> 321( -14)*5.21(-3.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 2300 CW3109 *1027(-0.4)* 57(0.75)*50.9(-6.9)* >> 333(18.3)*1.74(0.65) >> 16-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* >> 39(12.3)*4.34( -2) >> 16-JAN-2005 2330 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* >> 338(13.3)*1.74(0.65) >> 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.2(-6.4)* >> 14(37.3)*4.34( -2) >> 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.3(0.33)*-2.1( 1.7)*-5.9(1.54)*69.6(77.3)*0.76( >> 1.7) >> >> 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. >> >> Graphs: >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C3109 >> >> For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ >> To discuss, sign up to WXQC at >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >> To stop this email, just click the link >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=8cb3915283 >> >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-17 >> >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) >> 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.1)* 57(-0.2)*50.2(-6.6)* >> 314(46.9)*4.34(-2.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 0001 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.5(-6.9)* >> 271(89.9)*5.21(-3.3) >> 17-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.9( -7)* >> 326(34.9)*4.34(-2.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 0031 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56(0.79)*50.6(-6.7)* >> 283(77.9)*4.34(-2.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 0046 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 56(0.79)*50.9( -7)* >> 278(82.9)*2.61(-0.7) >> 17-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 56(-1.4)*51.2(-7.1)* 216( >> 158)*1.74(-0.6) >> 17-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 55(-0.4)*50.9(-6.7)* 0(31.1)* >> 0(1.12) >> 17-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1027(0.02)* 54(0.59)*51.1( -7)* 0(31.1)* >> 0(1.12) >> 17-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 54(-2.7)*50.8(-6.8)* 0(79.6)* >> 0(0.68) >> 17-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-0.7)*50.3(-6.3)* 0(79.6)* >> 0(0.68) >> 17-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-1.5)*49.8(-6.3)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 0316 CW3109 *1027(-0.6)* 52(-1.5)* 50(-6.6)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1027(-0.8)* 52(-1.5)*50.3(-6.9)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 0346 CW3109 *1027(-0.7)* 51(-0.5)*49.6(-6.2)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 57(-0.9)*53.5(-6.2)* >> 217(97.9)*1.74(-0.3) >> 17-JAN-2005 2115 CW3109 *1026(-0.0)* 58( -2)*53.8(-6.5)* >> 226(88.9)*1.74(-0.3) >> 17-JAN-2005 2131 CW3109 *1026(0.28)* 59( -3)*54.2(-6.8)* >> 282(32.9)*4.34(-2.9) >> 17-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1026(0.52)* 59(-3.1)*53.8(-6.6)* >> 295(19.9)*4.34(-2.9) >> 17-JAN-2005 2201 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 59(-1.9)*54.8(-7.1)* >> 327(-0.9)*5.21(-2.4) >> 17-JAN-2005 2215 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* >> 323(3.12)*6.95(-4.1) >> 17-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* >> 303(23.1)*4.34(-1.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 2245 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*53.8(-6.3)* >> 294(32.1)*5.21(-2.4) >> 17-JAN-2005 2301 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* >> 316(7.25)*5.21(-1.7) >> 17-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1026(-0.4)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.8)* >> 353( -40)*4.34(-0.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 2331 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* >> 330( -17)*4.34(-0.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 2346 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.7)* 312( >> 1.4)*1.74(2.08) >> 17-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.4( 0.3)*-1.3(1.01)*-4.8(1.84)* 23( >> 112)*0.07(1.33) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > From hlemon22 at mindspring.com Wed Jan 19 23:36:06 2005 From: hlemon22 at mindspring.com (Harold Lemon) Date: Wed Jan 19 23:36:48 2005 Subject: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 References: <001601c4fd32$5a3c2620$bc69f304@lharhome><41ED22A8.7080207@noaa.gov><000401c4fdff$84771120$d66af304@lharhome> Message-ID: <000401c4fea9$94250a00$c792f304@lharhome> Mike, Oh, okay. I guess I've gotten all my questions answered for now. All this feedback has really helped a lot. Thanks again for your time. Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael F Barth" To: "Discussion of data quality issues" Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 Harold, The list of stations used to QC your obs isn't predetermined, but is based on the data available at the time for each observation. Here's one example -- these stations were used to QC your dewpoint ob at 1200 GMT today. ID Network Lat Lon AP895 APRSWXNET 37.60 -122.10 UNCTY AWS 37.59 -122.02 KHWD ASOS 37.67 -122.12 OCCAL AWS 37.53 -121.92 MNLPR AWS 37.48 -122.16 HESSM AWS 37.48 -122.21 KOAK ASOS 37.73 -122.22 BELMT AWS 37.51 -122.29 Thanks, Mike On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Harold Lemon wrote: > Mike, > > Thanks a lot for the info. I have a better understanding now of what is going > on and how the system works. It's only with helpful people like you and Evan > that makes voluntary programs like CWOP/APRSWXNET work. I'm going to try a few > things to see if I can get the dewpoint/humidity issue corrected. I believe > having the pass/fail results included the summary would be a good idea. > > I noticed a list of nearby sites (see below) at the bottom of the graph for my > station. Would these be the stations that are used in the analysis for my > station? > > Nearby Sites > AP895: 1.7 miles (Richmond, CA US: lat 37.6000, long -122.1000) > C0538: 4.0 miles (Hayward, CA US: lat 37.6358, long -122.1230) > KHWD: 5.2 miles (Hayward, Hayward Air Terminal, CA, United States: lat 37.6608, > long -122.1180) > KPAO: 9.3 miles (Palo Alto Airport, CA, United States: lat 37.4667, > long -122.1170) > KSQL: 11.3 miles (San Carlos Airport, CA, United States: lat 37.5167, > long -122.2500) > KOAK: 12.4 miles (Oakland, Metro Oakland International Airport, CA, United > States: lat 37.7194, long -122.2350) > AR305: 12.6 miles (Fremont, CA US: lat 37.4668, long -121.9090) > KNUQ: 13.2 miles (Mountain View, Moffett Field, CA, United States: lat 37.4058, > long -122.0480) > AR321: 13.5 miles (W.Menlo Park, CA US: lat 37.4347, long -122.2060) > AP990: 14.5 miles (Sunnyvale, CA US: lat 37.3903, long -122.0240) > > Thanks again. > > Harold > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael F Barth" > To: "Discussion of data quality issues" > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:32 PM > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 > > > All, > > Evan's done an excellent job of explaining many of the basics of the > MADIS QC processing, and addressing the particular issues with Lyle > and Harold's data. I'd like to add a few comments that may help > people understand our QC and how to use the results. > > There's always going to be non-zero "error", even if a station is > perfect -- all this really is is the difference between the > observation and the estimated value at the location of the station in > question as calculated by taking the observations at 8 surrounding > stations and doing an analysis (or interpolation). > > When we're looking for bad stations we look at the pass/fail results > of the QC, not just the errors. We publish QC summary messages > (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly) for the CWOP/APRSWXNET and all the > other networks that we have at: > > http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_messages.html. > > Note that the daily, weekly and monthly summaries *only* contain those > stations and variables that have failed 25% or more of the time > during the period being covered. As a result, none of Lyle or > Harold's variables are included in our most recent weekly summary > (covers 1/8 - 1/14). A couple more comments on your data: > > Lyle - Even though your dewpoint errors on 1/16 seemed to be high, > not one of your dewpoint obs failed the QC. "High" errors aren't > necessarily bad. > > Harold - Even though your dewpoint didn't fail 25% of the time in > the 1/8-1/14 period, it did fail 19% of the time -- this probably > does bear further examination. Since your temperature didn't > fail once during the week, this probably isn't a shielding issue. > > I don't believe the QC pass/fail results are provided in Philip's > summaries. This would be a good addition, at least for the daily > summary line, and might help people know what should or shouldn't > be looked into any deeper. > > Also note that if your errors stay relatively constant over time, > you could use the average of your daily errors for, say, a week > to calibrate your barometer. > > Evan: The CWOP/APRSWXNET pressure variable that gets reported to > us is altimeter, and our analysis and QC are done on that variable > without any conversions. Sea level pressure is done separately. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Evan Bookbinder wrote: > >> Harold, note that the barometer reading in the report is rounded to the >> nearest whole millibar. Your numbers are WELL within tolerance. Absolutely >> nothing to worry about. My concern with the FSL QC routine is whether that >> millibar conversion is just a straight inches of mercury to millibar >> converstion or if it's actually using temperatures to calculate true "sea >> level pressure" as the NWS uses. This could also explain the small degree of >> error you are seeing, but as a whole, it looks great. >> >> Your dewpoint sensor definitely is having problems (which of course plays >> directly into relative humidity). Your error is averaging -6 to -7, meaning >> that your dewpoint is running much too warm. So I have several questions for >> you...what manufacturer of instrument do you have? where is the instrument >> sited on your property and what type of vegetation/etc...is beneath it? Does >> your temperature/dewpoint set have a fan aspiration? I'm concerned here >> because there are a number of "bad" weather stations on the market that I >> really would not recommend to weather hobbyists or professionals and the >> quality isn't sufficient for your own needs, let alone the CWOP network. 6-7 >> degree errors on the dewpoint are of course unacceptable, and usually there's >> little to blame outside of pure instrument error/design with that >> measurement, but I'm curious to see what you've got going on. >> >> As for your winds, they appear to be light and variable (generally < 5 mph). >> The QC report would really only be of assett on a day where everyone has a >> steady wind (say west at 10-15 mph) and true errors can be noted. >> >> Evan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Lemon" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:50 AM >> Subject: [wxqc] Fw: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 and 2005-01-17 >> >> >> >> I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what is going on with my >> station. >> I have included the reports below for 01-16-2005 and 01-17-2005. I compared >> the >> barometer readings with OAK, SFO, SJO, and HWD and don't appear to be more >> than >> .02 or .03 inches difference between them most of the time. I know I have a >> problem with dewpoint. The humidity is always about 20% higher than everyone >> else around me but, don't know if it is a problem with the sensor or where >> it's >> located. Where the wind is concerned, I calibrated the sensor with a compass >> so >> I don't understand why this is showing up in error. >> >> Also, I am at 10 ft. elevation and set my barometer with HWD which is at 46 >> ft. >> elevation. If their barometric pressure is at 30.30 in., should it be the >> same >> for my location or do I need to adjust it differently? >> >> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. >> >> Harold >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Weather Quality" >> >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:05 PM >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 >> >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) >> 16-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(0.06)* 52(-1.5)*48.9(-8.1)* 304( >> 129)*5.21(-3.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 51(-2.6)*48.5(-7.1)* 289( 135)*0.87( >> 1.2) >> 16-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)*48.8(-7.4)* 0(81.2)* >> 0(2.07) >> 16-JAN-2005 0131 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 51(-2.6)* 49(-7.7)* 0(81.2)* >> 0(2.07) >> 16-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-1.6)*48.3(-6.9)* 0(81.2)* >> 0(2.07) >> 16-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0216 CW3109 *1028(-0.6)* 50(-3.4)*48.6(-7.6)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0231 CW3109 *1028(-0.4)* 50(-3.4)*49.2(-8.1)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 49(-2.4)*47.9(-6.8)* 0(41.1)* 0( >> 1.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*48.2(-6.6)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 0315 CW3109 *1028(-0.2)* 49(-3.5)*47.9(-6.8)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1028(-0.3)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 0345 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 48(-2.5)*47.2( -6)* 0( 75)* >> 0(1.16) >> 16-JAN-2005 1816 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 48(0.09)*47.5(-6.6)* >> 262(-136)*2.61(-1.4) >> 16-JAN-2005 1846 CW3109 *1030(-0.5)* 49(-0.9)*47.9( -7)* >> 278(-152)*6.08(-4.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 1901 CW3109 *1030(-0.3)* 50(1.61)*48.6(-7.8)* 253( >> 177)*4.34(-2.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 1916 CW3109 *1030(-0.2)* 51(0.61)*49.3(-8.5)* 303( >> 127)*1.74(-0.2) >> 16-JAN-2005 1931 CW3109 *1030(0.01)* 51(0.61)* 49(-8.2)* >> 191(-121)*2.61(-1.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 1946 CW3109 *1029(0.21)* 52(-0.4)*49.5(-8.6)* >> 183(-113)*2.61(-1.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 2001 CW3109 *1029(-0.0)* 53(1.11)*50.1(-8.5)* >> 210(55.7)*2.61(-0.2) >> 16-JAN-2005 2015 CW3109 *1029(0.35)* 54(0.11)*50.5(-8.9)* >> 189(76.7)*4.34(-1.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 2031 CW3109 *1028(0.72)* 54(0.11)*49.9(-8.2)* 176(89.7)*1.74( >> 0.7) >> 16-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1028(-0.5)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* >> 313( -38)*4.34(-2.3) >> 16-JAN-2005 2116 CW3109 *1028(-0.0)* 55(0.99)*50.2(-7.9)* >> 232(43.5)*0.87(1.19) >> 16-JAN-2005 2130 CW3109 *1028(0.16)* 56(-0.0)*50.9(-8.5)* >> 339( -64)*4.34(-2.3) >> 16-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1027(0.61)* 56(-0.0)*50.6(-8.2)* >> 282(-6.5)*4.34(-2.3) >> 16-JAN-2005 2200 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56( 1.7)*50.6( -8)* >> 329( -22)*2.61(-1.1) >> 16-JAN-2005 2216 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 57( 0.7)*51.2(-8.6)* >> 327( -20)*4.34(-2.9) >> 16-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1027(0.03)* 56(1.09)*49.9(-7.3)* >> 312(-4.8)*5.21(-3.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 2246 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.09)*51.2(-8.6)* >> 321( -14)*5.21(-3.8) >> 16-JAN-2005 2300 CW3109 *1027(-0.4)* 57(0.75)*50.9(-6.9)* >> 333(18.3)*1.74(0.65) >> 16-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* >> 39(12.3)*4.34( -2) >> 16-JAN-2005 2330 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.5(-6.8)* >> 338(13.3)*1.74(0.65) >> 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.0)* 57(0.75)*50.2(-6.4)* >> 14(37.3)*4.34( -2) >> 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.3(0.33)*-2.1( 1.7)*-5.9(1.54)*69.6(77.3)*0.76( >> 1.7) >> >> 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. >> >> Graphs: >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C3109 >> >> For more information about quality checking, then visit http://www.wxqa.com/ >> To discuss, sign up to WXQC at >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >> To stop this email, just click the link >> http://pond.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/weather-qc.pl?act=unsub&pwd=8cb3915283 >> >> Subject: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-17 >> >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) >> 16-JAN-2005 2345 CW3109 *1027(-0.1)* 57(-0.2)*50.2(-6.6)* >> 314(46.9)*4.34(-2.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 0001 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.5(-6.9)* >> 271(89.9)*5.21(-3.3) >> 17-JAN-2005 0016 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 57(-0.2)*50.9( -7)* >> 326(34.9)*4.34(-2.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 0031 CW3109 *1027(-0.2)* 56(0.79)*50.6(-6.7)* >> 283(77.9)*4.34(-2.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 0046 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 56(0.79)*50.9( -7)* >> 278(82.9)*2.61(-0.7) >> 17-JAN-2005 0101 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 56(-1.4)*51.2(-7.1)* 216( >> 158)*1.74(-0.6) >> 17-JAN-2005 0116 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 55(-0.4)*50.9(-6.7)* 0(31.1)* >> 0(1.12) >> 17-JAN-2005 0146 CW3109 *1027(0.02)* 54(0.59)*51.1( -7)* 0(31.1)* >> 0(1.12) >> 17-JAN-2005 0201 CW3109 *1027(-0.3)* 54(-2.7)*50.8(-6.8)* 0(79.6)* >> 0(0.68) >> 17-JAN-2005 0246 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-0.7)*50.3(-6.3)* 0(79.6)* >> 0(0.68) >> 17-JAN-2005 0300 CW3109 *1027(-0.5)* 52(-1.5)*49.8(-6.3)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 0316 CW3109 *1027(-0.6)* 52(-1.5)* 50(-6.6)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 0331 CW3109 *1027(-0.8)* 52(-1.5)*50.3(-6.9)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 0346 CW3109 *1027(-0.7)* 51(-0.5)*49.6(-6.2)* 0( 148)* >> 0(0.79) >> 17-JAN-2005 2100 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 57(-0.9)*53.5(-6.2)* >> 217(97.9)*1.74(-0.3) >> 17-JAN-2005 2115 CW3109 *1026(-0.0)* 58( -2)*53.8(-6.5)* >> 226(88.9)*1.74(-0.3) >> 17-JAN-2005 2131 CW3109 *1026(0.28)* 59( -3)*54.2(-6.8)* >> 282(32.9)*4.34(-2.9) >> 17-JAN-2005 2145 CW3109 *1026(0.52)* 59(-3.1)*53.8(-6.6)* >> 295(19.9)*4.34(-2.9) >> 17-JAN-2005 2201 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 59(-1.9)*54.8(-7.1)* >> 327(-0.9)*5.21(-2.4) >> 17-JAN-2005 2215 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* >> 323(3.12)*6.95(-4.1) >> 17-JAN-2005 2231 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*54.5(-6.9)* >> 303(23.1)*4.34(-1.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 2245 CW3109 *1026(-0.7)* 58(-0.9)*53.8(-6.3)* >> 294(32.1)*5.21(-2.4) >> 17-JAN-2005 2301 CW3109 *1026(-0.6)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* >> 316(7.25)*5.21(-1.7) >> 17-JAN-2005 2316 CW3109 *1026(-0.4)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.8)* >> 353( -40)*4.34(-0.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 2331 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*54.8(-7.5)* >> 330( -17)*4.34(-0.5) >> 17-JAN-2005 2346 CW3109 *1026(-0.3)* 58(-2.1)*55.1(-7.7)* 312( >> 1.4)*1.74(2.08) >> 17-JAN-2005 Smry CW3109 *-0.4( 0.3)*-1.3(1.01)*-4.8(1.84)* 23( >> 112)*0.07(1.33) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc From dshelms at comcast.net Thu Jan 20 10:31:30 2005 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Thu Jan 20 10:31:37 2005 Subject: [wxqc] FW: Weather data quality report for 2005-01-16 Message-ID: <012020051531.967.41EFCED100050BCE000003C722007623029C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Lyle, I'm 50% German and 50% mutt; anyway when you swim in this stuff long enough, you get wet. Just looking at your graphs on Phil Gladstone's site plotted against Tico (KTIK): http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?date=20050117&site=C2689&addnl=KTIX&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl ... your data looks very good. On the QCMS statistics, the thing to pay attention to is the daily summary (the last couple rows with the "Smry" tag): DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 16-JAN-2005 Smry CW2689 *1.21(0.22)*1.65(1.77) *-2.2( 3.3) * -42(23.3) *-0.1(1.62) 1. ALT or Altimeter Pressure: For Jan16, you have a +1.21 mb bias, or QCMS has to add 1.21 mb to your data to "fit" it into the local analaysis. To get your pressure exactly dead on, you should increase your pressure on your console by about 00.04 inches (inches, not milibars, 1.0 mb = 00.03 inches). 2. POT TEMP: Potential temperature is a sea level reduced temperature, so we can compare different stations at different elevations in the mountains. You are essentially at sea level so you PT is about the same as your observed temp. QCMS says you have a +1.65 F bias or you are 1.65 F colder than your neighbors. On the Gladstone graphs of QCMS, you are generally dead-on except for the final part of the period and even at this time, you are consistent with Tico. Given your rather unique location close to the St Johns River and away from the coastal influence, your temperature difference is well justified and I wouldn't change anything. 3. DEW PNT: Dew Point statistics from QCMC is -2.2 F, or you are 2.2 F above the surrounding analysis. On the Gladstone graphs, it appears the QCMS analaysis is a bit whacky with certain "bad" stations jumping in and out of the analysis, caused by varying reporting intevals. I would disregard the QCMS stations and watch KTIK and KMCO so see if you are close to reality which I'm guessing you are. Hope this helps, Dave on travel in beautiful Savannah, GA! -------------- Original message -------------- > Being a newbie to the CWOP group I cannot decipher what you are trying to > tell me in the attached report. I've read and reread the material supplied, > been