[wxqc] Dewpoints for CW5204

[John & Delta]

Dave ,

 

  Thanks for your response.  Is there anyway that the offending station can
be removed from the system as it has a significant impact on me and also has
an effect on surrounding CWOP stations.   Good data is getting thrown out
because of a faulty sensor of another station.

 

John

CW5204 

 

Hi John,
 
Your data looks fine as compared to KMRB and other CWOPers (even GaryO):
http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C5204?date=20060202
<http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C5204?date=20060202&addnl=KMRB&ad
dnl=C0146&addnl=C1672&addnl=C4571&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=add
nl>
&addnl=KMRB&addnl=C0146&addnl=C1672&addnl=C4571&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&
.cgifields=addnl
 
There is probably some "unseen" WeatherBug station close to you that is
causing the humidity flakiness.  I would not recommend any adjustments as
your data is good.  Also, we usually encourage people to build up a month or
more of station QCMS statistics before attempting to judge sensor
performance. 
 
 
Dave
CW0351
 
 
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Sam Drinkard <sam at wa4phy.net
<http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc> >
> jdkuhn at adelphia.net
<http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc>  wrote:
> 
> >I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my RH sensor (Davis Pro 2
only 3 
> weeks old) or if I should adjust it upwards.  The dewpoints correspond
fairly 
> good with surrounding stations (KMRB, C0146, c1672) but my RH seems to be
my 
> issue.  The analysis for the Dewpoint yesterday seems weird.  It jumps
from 20 
> to 25 around 1600.   Looking at the last severl days shows that the
analysis of 
> RH is 10 to 15 % off most of the time.  
> >
> >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C5204?tile=10;days=3#Data
> >
> >
> >Any thoughts on what to do?  Should I adjust the RH upwards?  
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >John
> >CW5204
> >  
> >
> John,
> 
>     Aside from your spikes, there are a couple of other stations you are 
> being compared with (I suspect) and the few I looked at have a bad case 
> of the jaggies, however Dave or Mike might be able to find more info 
> than is from Phil's website.  Definately something flakey..
> 
> Sam

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060202/cec44c62/attachment.html