From dshelms at comcast.net Sun Jan 1 11:56:46 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sun Jan 1 11:56:40 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Fw: RE: Davis Comments on Rainfall Measurements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B809CE.6030203@comcast.net> Hi Jim, It doesn't matter what the rain droplet size is for the Peet Pro gauge, since the Pro's funnel orifice actually forms the droplet that is counted by the internal electrode shorting. I think when you write "mf", you are referring to "morning fog" or dew, right? False precip from dew can be a problem for all automated and even manual precip gauges. Some data logging applications will not remove spurrious 0.01 precip totals, if configured to do so. I am always correcting my station precip totals from my Peet Pro gauge using Weather Display application after comparing its totals with my manual gauge. I encourage you to not ignore spurrious precip totals, but try and correct them after the fact in your station climate record if the reports are obviously incorrect. In real-time reports to CWOP and NOAA, erroreous precip from automated stations are QC'd and processed aaccordingly so I would not be too concerned about the occassional dew induced precip report as these are not operationally significant. Cheers, Dave CW0351 jim wrote: >Dave >My Gauge is also a Peet Pro rain gauge. I was more concerned on over >counting because Ill get a couple drops this week then a couple next week >etc then all of a sudden the gauge increments .01 and no rain in sight. or >should I even worry about it. The only problem I had with the gauge is I had >to put a couple of capacitors in the sensor leads to dissipate mf. >Jim > >-----Original Message----- >From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Dave Helms >Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:52 PM >To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >Subject: Re: [wxqc] Fw: RE: Davis Comments on Rainfall Measurements > > >Hi Jim, > >I have a Peet Pro rain gauge that "counts" drops by running the rain >through a funnel which makes a standard sized droplet. These "standard" >droplets then "shorting" the drops across electrodes, which I think you >are describing. My "shorting" gauge has no moving parts, and >performance reasonably well in my relatively wet location (52+ inches of >precip this year). > >When it rains, the humidity goes up very quickly so I wouldn't think >evaporation accounts for any significant precip under-reporting (of >course evaporation does happen in the desert, called virga, but if rain >never hits the ground then it is not recorded as rainfall). Anyway, >this under-reporting from evaporation (however small) should be equal >for all automated gauges. A manual gauge or weighing gauge could >evaporate some rainfall if you wait too long to retrieve the precip >measurement. Weighing gauges reduce evaporation by putting a small >amount of light oil in the gauge which stops evaporation of precip as it >"floats" ontop of new rain (or the rain "sinks" under the oil). > >Dave >CW0351 > >jim wrote: > > > >>Dave >>While it seems a lot of people are on the subject of rain gauges. what are >>some of the thoughts on Electronic non tipping bucket type. rain gauges. I >>guess the gauge counts a "standard size drop" and after so many drops it >>increments .01 the only adjustment is at the console. I have one and I >>thought it would be good here in the desert as drops are few and far >>between, and a drop can evaporate before it is measured in a tipping bucket >>type. >>Jim >>CW4367 >>-----Original Message----- >>From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Dave Helms >>Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 11:53 PM >>To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >>Subject: Re: [wxqc] Fw: RE: Davis Comments on Rainfall Measurements >> >> >>Hi Leroy, >> >>It is true with "convective" type rain, characterized by rainshowers and >>thunderstorms, is highly variable in time and space. During that >>winter, rain is typically "stratified" especially ahead of warm front >>where rainfall is nearly uniform over larger areas. Large elevation >>differences will also cause rainfall to be quite variable over short >>distances (e.g. windward maximum and leeward rain shadow). All these >>differences in the distribution of rain make it as yet a challenge for >>NOAA to do automated QC on precip reports. MADIS does not yet do >>rainfall QC, and at the River Forecast Centers, humans sift through the >>precip reports to generate composite rainfall estimates. Given that >>professionals struggle with determining aerial precip measurement >>accuracy, the best way for hobbyists to monitor automated precip gauge >>performance is to cut the distance uncertainty error to zero by having a >>co-located manual gauge. >> >>Here is my custom sensor array solution to automated and manual rain >>gauge co-location: >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/76833808@N00/57509378/ >> >>I have contacted a company that will sell the 4" manual rain gauge for >>$20.25 (part # RG100), plus shipping. This is a much reduced "group >>rate" for CWOP, just tell them you are with "Citizen Weather" (CWOP is >>not getting a commission here, just helping to save members $$$). The >>company, Construction Safety Products, Inc., can be reached via the >>phone at 1-800-592-6940, ask for the Forestry Dept., or order online at >>www.cspoutdoors.com >> >>Dave >>CW0351 >> >>LeRoy Lambert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>*/Here is what I got from Davis on the accuracy of my rain gauge/* >>>*//* >>>*/LeRoy/* >>>*//* >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>*From:* Randy MacAulay >>>*To:* LeRoy Lambert >>>*Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2005 1:42 PM >>>*Subject:* RE: >>> >>>LeRoy, >>>As long as the rain collector is level and the tipping buckets are >>>clean and tipping freely, then the rain collector should be very >>>accurate.It can be calibrated by adjusting the height of the posts >>>that the buckets rest on. I always caution people when comparing >>>readings to different types of collectors in different locations. If >>>you doubt the accuracy of your rain collector, you can send it in for >>>evaluation. We can even have it NIST certified. >>> >>> >>>Randy MacAulay >>>Davis Instruments >>>Technical Support >>>randym@davisnet.com >>>Phone: (510) 732-7814 >>>FAX: (510) 670-0589 >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >> >> >> >> >>> *From:* LeRoy Lambert [mailto:leroydl@verizon.net] >>> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2005 7:45 AM >>> *To:* Support >>> *Subject:* >>> >>> */I'm seeing reports from people at COP finding your rain gauge >>> reading as much as 30% off. Is there a way to check the >>> accuratisy or calibrate the tipping bucket gauge?/* >>> *//* >>> */LeRoy/* >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>wxqc mailing list >>>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>> >>>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>wxqc mailing list >>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>wxqc mailing list >>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > > > From jimwc at frontiernet.net Sun Jan 1 16:34:14 2006 From: jimwc at frontiernet.net (jim) Date: Sun Jan 1 16:34:14 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Fw: RE: Davis Comments on Rainfall Measurements In-Reply-To: <43B809CE.6030203@comcast.net> Message-ID: Dave Thanks. you answered my question. when I said "MF" I was referring to "RFI" or "EMF" electrical interference. I was having a problem with the gauge incrementing ever few days. but after I installed two 1000Pf Capacitors across the sensor leads it took care of the problem. it was a known problem at Peet Bros, and there Tec support told me how to fix it. I hope you and your's have a great and prosperous New Year. Jim -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Dave Helms Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 9:57 AM To: Discussion of weather data quality issues Subject: Re: [wxqc] Fw: RE: Davis Comments on Rainfall Measurements Hi Jim, It doesn't matter what the rain droplet size is for the Peet Pro gauge, since the Pro's funnel orifice actually forms the droplet that is counted by the internal electrode shorting. I think when you write "mf", you are referring to "morning fog" or dew, right? False precip from dew can be a problem for all automated and even manual precip gauges. Some data logging applications will not remove spurrious 0.01 precip totals, if configured to do so. I am always correcting my station precip totals from my Peet Pro gauge using Weather Display application after comparing its totals with my manual gauge. I encourage you to not ignore spurrious precip totals, but try and correct them after the fact in your station climate record if the reports are obviously incorrect. In real-time reports to CWOP and NOAA, erroreous precip from automated stations are QC'd and processed aaccordingly so I would not be too concerned about the occassional dew induced precip report as these are not operationally significant. Cheers, Dave CW0351 jim wrote: >Dave >My Gauge is also a Peet Pro rain gauge. I was more concerned on over >counting because Ill get a couple drops this week then a couple next week >etc then all of a sudden the gauge increments .01 and no rain in sight. or >should I even worry about it. The only problem I had with the gauge is I had >to put a couple of capacitors in the sensor leads to dissipate mf. >Jim > >-----Original Message----- >From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Dave Helms >Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:52 PM >To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >Subject: Re: [wxqc] Fw: RE: Davis Comments on Rainfall Measurements > > >Hi Jim, > >I have a Peet Pro rain gauge that "counts" drops by running the rain >through a funnel which makes a standard sized droplet. These "standard" >droplets then "shorting" the drops across electrodes, which I think you >are describing. My "shorting" gauge has no moving parts, and >performance reasonably well in my relatively wet location (52+ inches of >precip this year). > >When it rains, the humidity goes up very quickly so I wouldn't think >evaporation accounts for any significant precip under-reporting (of >course evaporation does happen in the desert, called virga, but if rain >never hits the ground then it is not recorded as rainfall). Anyway, >this under-reporting from evaporation (however small) should be equal >for all automated gauges. A manual gauge or weighing gauge could >evaporate some rainfall if you wait too long to retrieve the precip >measurement. Weighing gauges reduce evaporation by putting a small >amount of light oil in the gauge which stops evaporation of precip as it >"floats" ontop of new rain (or the rain "sinks" under the oil). > >Dave >CW0351 > >jim wrote: > > > >>Dave >>While it seems a lot of people are on the subject of rain gauges. what are >>some of the thoughts on Electronic non tipping bucket type. rain gauges. I >>guess the gauge counts a "standard size drop" and after so many drops it >>increments .01 the only adjustment is at the console. I have one and I >>thought it would be good here in the desert as drops are few and far >>between, and a drop can evaporate before it is measured in a tipping bucket >>type. >>Jim >>CW4367 >>-----Original Message----- >>From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Dave Helms >>Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 11:53 PM >>To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >>Subject: Re: [wxqc] Fw: RE: Davis Comments on Rainfall Measurements >> >> >>Hi Leroy, >> >>It is true with "convective" type rain, characterized by rainshowers and >>thunderstorms, is highly variable in time and space. During that >>winter, rain is typically "stratified" especially ahead of warm front >>where rainfall is nearly uniform over larger areas. Large elevation >>differences will also cause rainfall to be quite variable over short >>distances (e.g. windward maximum and leeward rain shadow). All these >>differences in the distribution of rain make it as yet a challenge for >>NOAA to do automated QC on precip reports. MADIS does not yet do >>rainfall QC, and at the River Forecast Centers, humans sift through the >>precip reports to generate composite rainfall estimates. Given that >>professionals struggle with determining aerial precip measurement >>accuracy, the best way for hobbyists to monitor automated precip gauge >>performance is to cut the distance uncertainty error to zero by having a >>co-located manual gauge. >> >>Here is my custom sensor array solution to automated and manual rain >>gauge co-location: >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/76833808@N00/57509378/ >> >>I have contacted a company that will sell the 4" manual rain gauge for >>$20.25 (part # RG100), plus shipping. This is a much reduced "group >>rate" for CWOP, just tell them you are with "Citizen Weather" (CWOP is >>not getting a commission here, just helping to save members $$$). The >>company, Construction Safety Products, Inc., can be reached via the >>phone at 1-800-592-6940, ask for the Forestry Dept., or order online at >>www.cspoutdoors.com >> >>Dave >>CW0351 >> >>LeRoy Lambert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>*/Here is what I got from Davis on the accuracy of my rain gauge/* >>>*//* >>>*/LeRoy/* >>>*//* >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>*From:* Randy MacAulay >>>*To:* LeRoy Lambert >>>*Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2005 1:42 PM >>>*Subject:* RE: >>> >>>LeRoy, >>>As long as the rain collector is level and the tipping buckets are >>>clean and tipping freely, then the rain collector should be very >>>accurate.It can be calibrated by adjusting the height of the posts >>>that the buckets rest on. I always caution people when comparing >>>readings to different types of collectors in different locations. If >>>you doubt the accuracy of your rain collector, you can send it in for >>>evaluation. We can even have it NIST certified. >>> >>> >>>Randy MacAulay >>>Davis Instruments >>>Technical Support >>>randym@davisnet.com >>>Phone: (510) 732-7814 >>>FAX: (510) 670-0589 >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >> >> >> >> >>> *From:* LeRoy Lambert [mailto:leroydl@verizon.net] >>> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2005 7:45 AM >>> *To:* Support >>> *Subject:* >>> >>> */I'm seeing reports from people at COP finding your rain gauge >>> reading as much as 30% off. Is there a way to check the >>> accuratisy or calibrate the tipping bucket gauge?/* >>> *//* >>> */LeRoy/* >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>wxqc mailing list >>>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>> >>>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>wxqc mailing list >>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>wxqc mailing list >>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > > > _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. From rmauser at gci.net Mon Jan 2 15:10:18 2006 From: rmauser at gci.net (Richard Mauser) Date: Mon Jan 2 15:10:35 2006 Subject: [wxqc] RE: wxqc Digest, Vol 14, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <0IRE009KA9XI92A0@msgmta-1.gci.net> Message-ID: <0ISH00ENQEPE5Y70@msgmmp-4.gci.net> Sorry for the late reply I am running the following stations: CW4418 - Davis Vantage Pro II running WeatherLink v5.6.0a. CW1480 - Davis Vantage Pro running Weather Link v5.6.0a. I have sent an e-mail to Davis Inc. about running both station at the same time on WL v5.6.0a Rich -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of wxqc-request@lists.gladstonefamily.net Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:01 AM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: wxqc Digest, Vol 14, Issue 15 Send wxqc mailing list submissions to wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wxqc-request@lists.gladstonefamily.net You can reach the person managing the list at wxqc-owner@lists.gladstonefamily.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of wxqc digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Weather station types & software (Jim McMurry) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:25:27 -0600 From: "Jim McMurry" Subject: [wxqc] Weather station types & software To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Philip, Station C3882 is a Davis Vantage Pro II running WeatherLink v5.6.0a. Thanks for all your hard work. - Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20051212/4b 69360c/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc The contents of these messages are the responsibility of the author(s). End of wxqc Digest, Vol 14, Issue 15 ************************************ From dshelms at comcast.net Mon Jan 2 20:58:18 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Mon Jan 2 20:58:13 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Coordinate Format Conversion Tool In-Reply-To: <0ISH00ENQEPE5Y70@msgmmp-4.gci.net> References: <0ISH00ENQEPE5Y70@msgmmp-4.gci.net> Message-ID: <43B9DA3A.8060809@comcast.net> Hi All: Someone emailed this link to me yesterday: http://www.directionsmag.com/latlong.php It is a latitude/longitude format conversion tool; if you have decimal, degree:minutes:seconds, or LORAN (degrees, minutes, decimal minutes), it will convert one format into the over two formats. It is much easier than than Topozone's "Coordinate Format" toggle, but it will only convert one coordinate at a time (lat or lon) and won't provide negative coordinates (e.g. south latitude and west longitude). Happy New Year to everyone, Dave CW0351 Richard Mauser wrote: >Sorry for the late reply > >I am running the following stations: > >CW4418 - Davis Vantage Pro II running WeatherLink v5.6.0a. >CW1480 - Davis Vantage Pro running Weather Link v5.6.0a. > >I have sent an e-mail to Davis Inc. about running both station at the same >time on WL v5.6.0a > >Rich >-----Original Message----- >From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of >wxqc-request@lists.gladstonefamily.net >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:01 AM >To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >Subject: wxqc Digest, Vol 14, Issue 15 > >Send wxqc mailing list submissions to > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wxqc-request@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >You can reach the person managing the list at > wxqc-owner@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of wxqc digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Weather station types & software (Jim McMurry) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:25:27 -0600 >From: "Jim McMurry" >Subject: [wxqc] Weather station types & software >To: >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Philip, > >Station C3882 is a Davis Vantage Pro II running WeatherLink v5.6.0a. Thanks >for all your hard work. - Jim >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20051212/4b >69360c/attachment-0001.html > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of these messages are the responsibility of the author(s). > > >End of wxqc Digest, Vol 14, Issue 15 >************************************ > > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > > > From jmcmurry at mwt.net Tue Jan 3 07:57:50 2006 From: jmcmurry at mwt.net (Jim McMurry) Date: Tue Jan 3 07:58:05 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? Message-ID: I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows what might have caused it. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Ad d+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station to me. None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". Jim McMurry C3882 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060103/ff79d00a/attachment.html From sam at wa4phy.net Tue Jan 3 09:37:01 2006 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Tue Jan 3 09:37:05 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43BA8C0D.6080706@wa4phy.net> Jim McMurry wrote: > I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows > what might have caused it. > > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl > > > Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in > my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest > station to me. > > None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing > happen. Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages > or if the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". > > Jim McMurry > C3882 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Jim, I saw the same thing on my graphs. I had to do some file restore from backup sometime that day, and assumed it was due to the restore operation. Guess now, it was nothing I did since you see it too. Have no idea what it is, but I've seen it before. Perhaps Philip can tell us what happened. Sam -- Snowman From gwbuxton at ntbb.net Tue Jan 3 10:39:16 2006 From: gwbuxton at ntbb.net (Gerald Buxton) Date: Tue Jan 3 10:39:19 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2ylkauap7q2ftks.030120060942@mwserver> I have seen this too Jim, on my qc reports. I believe the last time I saw it, I looked back at the weather data link and saw that one of the reportings was way high (I believe it was barometer)... don't know though whether that was actually sent by the WXTrak device, or the packet was decoded wrong by a receiving station. Jerry AR194 N0JY --Original Message Text--- From: Jim McMurry Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 06:57:50 -0600 I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows what might have caused it. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR82 5&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station to me. None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". Jim McMurry C3882 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060103/5ac69a0d/attachment.html From Evan.Bookbinder at noaa.gov Tue Jan 3 11:11:28 2006 From: Evan.Bookbinder at noaa.gov (Evan Bookbinder) Date: Tue Jan 3 11:11:33 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? In-Reply-To: <2ylkauap7q2ftks.030120060942@mwserver> References: <2ylkauap7q2ftks.030120060942@mwserver> Message-ID: <43BAA230.8010507@noaa.gov> This might be something the software developers should be made aware of. We'll occasionally see a random barometric spike here at the WFO too, which I assume is simply a bad packet. Bad packet or bad measurement aside, I can't imagine that it would be too terribly difficult to have the decoding software compare the current value to the last stored value within so many seconds (in case the system has been off for a while). If the difference exceeds some arbitrary value, toss it (or at least store it and flag it). What I find most interesting is that two spikes occurred from two nearby stations almost simultaneously. The barometer went in opposite directions. My guess is that something causing a lot of interference passed through your locations, causing a bad set of packets to be ingested. The time is a bit off, but we'd see that here at the NWS when the upper air balloon was launched. The signal overwhelmed one of our satellite received systems on a very nearby frequency. Time to call the UFO reporting center :))))) Evan Gerald Buxton wrote: > I have seen this too Jim, on my qc reports. I believe the last time I > saw it, I looked back at the weather data link and saw that one of the > reportings was way high (I believe it was barometer)... don't know > though whether that was actually sent by the WXTrak device, or the > packet was decoded wrong by a receiving station. > > Jerry > AR194 > N0JY > > --Original Message Text--- > *From:* Jim McMurry > *Date:* Tue, 3 Jan 2006 06:57:50 -0600 > > I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows > what might have caused it. > > _http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl_ > > Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in > my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station > to me. > > None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. > Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if > the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". > > Jim McMurry > C3882 > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Evan.Bookbinder.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060103/329e8bbb/Evan.Bookbinder.bin From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Jan 3 11:21:34 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Tue Jan 3 11:21:34 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? Message-ID: <010320061621.17903.43BAA48E000B212D000045EF22007610649C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Evan, I think the entire QCMS analysis has a hick-up for an hour (a single 15 minute time step) then recovered, maybe its was a end-of-year roll-over thing? Mike Barth should be able to advise us on the situation. Cheers, Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Evan Bookbinder" > This might be something the software developers should be made aware of. > We'll occasionally see a random barometric spike here at the WFO too, > which I assume is simply a bad packet. Bad packet or bad measurement > aside, I can't imagine that it would be too terribly difficult to have > the decoding software compare the current value to the last stored value > within so many seconds (in case the system has been off for a while). If > the difference exceeds some arbitrary value, toss it (or at least store > it and flag it). > > What I find most interesting is that two spikes occurred from two nearby > stations almost simultaneously. The barometer went in opposite > directions. My guess is that something causing a lot of interference > passed through your locations, causing a bad set of packets to be > ingested. The time is a bit off, but we'd see that here at the NWS when > the upper air balloon was launched. The signal overwhelmed one of our > satellite received systems on a very nearby frequency. Time to call the > UFO reporting center :))))) > > Evan > > Gerald Buxton wrote: > > > I have seen this too Jim, on my qc reports. I believe the last time I > > saw it, I looked back at the weather data link and saw that one of the > > reportings was way high (I believe it was barometer)... don't know > > though whether that was actually sent by the WXTrak device, or the > > packet was decoded wrong by a receiving station. > > > > Jerry > > AR194 > > N0JY > > > > --Original Message Text--- > > *From:* Jim McMurry > > *Date:* Tue, 3 Jan 2006 06:57:50 -0600 > > > > I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows > > what might have caused it. > > > > > _http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Add+t > o+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl_ > > > > Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in > > my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station > > to me. > > > > None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. > > Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if > > the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". > > > > Jim McMurry > > C3882 > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >wxqc mailing list > >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Evan Bookbinder" Subject: Re: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:15:58 +0000 Size: 1214 Url: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060103/21e75d46/attachment-0001.mht From deadeye916 at gmail.com Tue Jan 3 11:54:44 2006 From: deadeye916 at gmail.com (Dan Crooks) Date: Tue Jan 3 11:54:47 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? In-Reply-To: <2ylkauap7q2ftks.030120060942@mwserver> References: <2ylkauap7q2ftks.030120060942@mwserver> Message-ID: See the same thing here. Interesting all the local airports that report data are missing from 0500-1900 hours on the 2nd. Dan CW1789 On 1/3/06, Gerald Buxton wrote: > > I have seen this too Jim, on my qc reports. I believe the last time I saw > it, I looked back at the weather data link and saw that one of the > reportings was way high (I believe it was barometer)... don't know though > whether that was actually sent by the WXTrak device, or the packet was > decoded wrong by a receiving station. > > Jerry > AR194 > N0JY > > --Original Message Text--- > *From:* Jim McMurry > *Date:* Tue, 3 Jan 2006 06:57:50 -0600 > > I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows what > might have caused it. > > * > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl > * > > Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in my > logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station to me. > > None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. > Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if the > system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". > > Jim McMurry > C3882 > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > -- Browns Valley, California http://weather.dcrooks.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060103/02a41c46/attachment.html From cmowen at att.net Mon Jan 2 22:56:25 2006 From: cmowen at att.net (Charles M. Owen) Date: Tue Jan 3 13:59:00 2006 Subject: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature Message-ID: Hi, I am sort of a newbie. I have only had my Christmas present La Crosse WS-3120TWC up for two weeks. These are my first QC reports. I am 27 miles from the closest known site that I am compared with. When should I start worrying about these readings? DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 02-JAN-2006 0813 CW4870 *1013.(-0.2)* 59(-6.3)*51.8(-5.3)*199.(132.)*4.34(-2.6) 02-JAN-2006 1037 CW4870 *1011.(0.45)* 60(-6.9)*53.5(-6.2)*192.(6.08)*4.34( -4) 02-JAN-2006 1052 CW4870 *1011.(0.85)* 60(-6.9)*53.1(-5.8)*190.(8.08)*5.21(-4.8) 02-JAN-2006 1102 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* 60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*182.(135.)*6.08(-5.3) 02-JAN-2006 1117 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* 60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*203.(114.)*6.95(-6.2) 02-JAN-2006 1132 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* 61(-7.8)*53.7(-6.2)*249.(68.9)*3.48(-2.7) 02-JAN-2006 1147 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* 60(-6.8)*53.5(-5.9)*206.(111.)*7.82( -7) 02-JAN-2006 1202 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* 59(-6.9)*53.5(-4.5)*236.( 19)*4.34(-3.6) 02-JAN-2006 Errs CW4870 * 0/87 * 15/87 * 0/87 * 1/87 * 1/87 02-JAN-2006 Smry CW4870 *-0.3( 0.5)*-3.7(2.79)*-1.9(2.76)*43.3(76.2)*-3.3(3.01) 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://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C4870?date=20060103 From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Jan 3 14:25:36 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Tue Jan 3 14:25:36 2006 Subject: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature Message-ID: <010320061925.22262.43BACFB0000B2560000056F622070009539C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Charles, Welcome to the group! We have seen some radiation shield problems with the LaCrosse stations in the past, especially the WS2300. These problems have been mitigated successfully with replacement of the LaCrosse "cone" shield which has very high restricted ventilation, with a standard "bee hive" or Gill shield who's horizontal plates allow the sensors to "breath" without solar contamination. In the limited period of record for your station's operation, we are seeing a high "negative bias" (e.g. warmer than the surrounding stations, after an elevation correction). This is very preliminary info, and it will take more time to get a better picture or performance. To help us better assess your station's performance, could you please upload digital pictures of your weather station sensors to the FLICKR page using the instructions on this page: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brookevilleweather/flickr_setup.html Thanks, Dave CW0351 P.S. Hey Philip: I don't think the most recent FLICKR "CWOP Metadata Group" member's pictures with "CWOP" tags are getting embedded in the WXQC station pages. -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Charles M. Owen" > Hi, I am sort of a newbie. I have only had my Christmas present La Crosse > WS-3120TWC up for two weeks. These are my first QC reports. I am 27 miles > from the closest known site that I am compared with. When should I start > worrying about these readings? > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * > FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * > (KNT) > 02-JAN-2006 0813 CW4870 *1013.(-0.2)* > 59(-6.3)*51.8(-5.3)*199.(132.)*4.34(-2.6) > 02-JAN-2006 1037 CW4870 *1011.(0.45)* > 60(-6.9)*53.5(-6.2)*192.(6.08)*4.34( -4) > 02-JAN-2006 1052 CW4870 *1011.(0.85)* > 60(-6.9)*53.1(-5.8)*190.(8.08)*5.21(-4.8) > 02-JAN-2006 1102 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* > 60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*182.(135.)*6.08(-5.3) > 02-JAN-2006 1117 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* > 60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*203.(114.)*6.95(-6.2) > 02-JAN-2006 1132 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* > 61(-7.8)*53.7(-6.2)*249.(68.9)*3.48(-2.7) > 02-JAN-2006 1147 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* > 60(-6.8)*53.5(-5.9)*206.(111.)*7.82( -7) > 02-JAN-2006 1202 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* 59(-6.9)*53.5(-4.5)*236.( > 19)*4.34(-3.6) > 02-JAN-2006 Errs CW4870 * 0/87 * 15/87 * 0/87 * 1/87 * > 1/87 > 02-JAN-2006 Smry CW4870 *-0.3( > 0.5)*-3.7(2.79)*-1.9(2.76)*43.3(76.2)*-3.3(3.01) > > 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://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C4870?date=20060103 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Tue Jan 3 17:04:25 2006 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Mike Barth) Date: Tue Jan 3 17:04:26 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? In-Reply-To: <010320061621.17903.43BAA48E000B212D000045EF22007610649C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> References: <010320061621.17903.43BAA48E000B212D000045EF22007610649C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: I've looked into this case: the MADIS ingest processing failed for the APRSWXNET data at 1/2 09:37 GMT. What happened was that all stations whose ID's are alphabetically higher than AP146 had the wrong data (data from station N+1 in the input file got mistakenly assigned to station N). I went back and looked at the last 3 weeks of data and found no other occurrence of this problem, so it appears to be an isolated incident. If anyone notices this same pattern happening again, please let me know. The thing to look for is a sudden jump in the observation values, closely followed by a return to normal. (This has nothing to do with occasional spikes in the analysis or error values). Also, this won't be isolated to just one variable (e.g., temperature) but will happen to all of them at the same time. Thanks, Mike On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 dshelms@comcast.net wrote: > Hi Evan, > > I think the entire QCMS analysis has a hick-up for an hour (a single 15 minute time step) then recovered, maybe its was a end-of-year roll-over thing? > > Mike Barth should be able to advise us on the situation. > > Cheers, > > Dave > CW0351 > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Evan Bookbinder" >> This might be something the software developers should be made aware of. >> We'll occasionally see a random barometric spike here at the WFO too, >> which I assume is simply a bad packet. Bad packet or bad measurement >> aside, I can't imagine that it would be too terribly difficult to have >> the decoding software compare the current value to the last stored value >> within so many seconds (in case the system has been off for a while). If >> the difference exceeds some arbitrary value, toss it (or at least store >> it and flag it). >> >> What I find most interesting is that two spikes occurred from two nearby >> stations almost simultaneously. The barometer went in opposite >> directions. My guess is that something causing a lot of interference >> passed through your locations, causing a bad set of packets to be >> ingested. The time is a bit off, but we'd see that here at the NWS when >> the upper air balloon was launched. The signal overwhelmed one of our >> satellite received systems on a very nearby frequency. Time to call the >> UFO reporting center :))))) >> >> Evan >> >> Gerald Buxton wrote: >> >>> I have seen this too Jim, on my qc reports. I believe the last time I >>> saw it, I looked back at the weather data link and saw that one of the >>> reportings was way high (I believe it was barometer)... don't know >>> though whether that was actually sent by the WXTrak device, or the >>> packet was decoded wrong by a receiving station. >>> >>> Jerry >>> AR194 >>> N0JY >>> >>> --Original Message Text--- >>> *From:* Jim McMurry >>> *Date:* Tue, 3 Jan 2006 06:57:50 -0600 >>> >>> I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows >>> what might have caused it. >>> >>> >> _http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Add+t >> o+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl_ >>> >>> Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in >>> my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station >>> to me. >>> >>> None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. >>> Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if >>> the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". >>> >>> Jim McMurry >>> C3882 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wxqc mailing list >>> wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>> http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>> >>> The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >>> > > > > From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Jan 3 18:39:36 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Tue Jan 3 18:39:43 2006 Subject: [wxqc] New NWS Precip Estimate Page Message-ID: <010320062339.17079.43BB0B3800072F8F000042B722007348309C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Here is a new NWS radar based precip estimate web site: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/rfcshare/precip_analysis_new.php The precip analysis page might be helpful for getting a ballpark comparison to your rainfall totals. Dave CW0351 From nhunt at tamarackmountain.com Wed Jan 4 02:18:42 2006 From: nhunt at tamarackmountain.com (Neil Hunt) Date: Wed Jan 4 08:40:18 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Measuring Snow In-Reply-To: <20051231170022.0194BC3DA3@mail01.powweb.com> Message-ID: <20060104071836.DA273C3F5C@mail01.powweb.com> Here's an interesting instrument design problem... My rain gauge is modified to collect snow for passive solar melting, but now apparently over-reads by 2-4 *times*. I'm looking for insight on my modification, or advice on how to modify it to collect snow for melting, but not over-read rainfall. Details below. I'm operating a remote solar powered weather station reporting via amateur packet radio (KG6PPD-9), on top a 7200 foot peak about 15 miles west of the Sierra crest. The station is based on the Peets U2100 with the pro rain gauge (parabolic shaped collector with drip formation and counting). The solar panels don't have sufficient power to heat the rain gauge, so I modified it by adding a passive solar melting tube to the gauge: pictures at: http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Pictures.html. The solar melting tube is a piece of black plastic 3-inch drain pipe. The Peets pro rain gauge has an 8-square-inch collection area (about 3.19 inch radius). The inner diameter of 3-inch drain pipe is 3 inches, and the outer diameter is about 3.3 inches. Some careful shaping yields a pipe with a razor-edge with the same 3.19 inches diameter as the unmodified rain gauge collector (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/DSC_7821.jpg). Snow that collects in the pipe melts slowly when the sun comes out and the drips are directed into the raingauge by means of a 3-inch to 2-inch reducer fitting, and a 3-inch to 3-inch coupler makes a sleeve to prevent snowmelt or rain from the outside of the collector from tricking into the collection bucket: (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/SnowCollector.j pg). The lip of the gauge is about 12 feet above the ground, currently about 6 feet above the snow. The site is generally not windy - average winds of 2-5 mph are common during major rain events. The design of my collector was motivated by the CA dept of water resources sensors, which appear to be a similar vertical tube, albeit of much larger diameter and height. 3 Teaspoons of water slowly dripped from a small nozzle yields a measured .11 or .12 inches of rain, as expected. However, in a large storm, the gauge routinely reads 2-4 *times* more rain than nearby stations, often showing improbably high figures of 3 or 4 inches of rain in a day while my neighbors are reading 1.5 inches. It's possible that the orography at the site really does extract a lot more water from the atmosphere, or it is possible that the design of the snow collector somehow funnels much more rain than the cross-section of the pipe might indicate. Note that it isn't a case of measuring 1/100 cms instead of 1/100 inches, since the 3-Teaspoon test comes out correct, and the multiplier between my measurement and neighbor's varies quite significantly from one event to the next. Unfortunately, the site is about 3.5 hours drive away from home, and right now is about 30 minutes of snow-shoeing from the nearest vehicle access - so access is strictly limited. But I was able to visit on one occasion while it was raining hard, and during that 30 minutes or so, the 2/10ths collected in a jar on the ground corresponded closely to the measurement from the instrument. I made a temporary modification by adding a secondary collection vessel to the instrument drain. Snowfall, freezing, and inability to access until the collection vessel overflowed made this calibration effort useless, but a side effect was that there was no path for wind to suck through the drip counter (since the drip tube was underwater). The gauge still counted significantly more rain than nearby stations. My station data can be viewed at http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=KG6PPD-9&last=240 (or, if you are patient, at http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Index.pl) while the nearest neighbor is at http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4253&last=240. Note that CW4253 is not solar powered, and accordingly was subject to an extended power failure this past weekend. That rain gauge isn't heated either. We had a major snow event (4-6 feet) over the weekend, which has barely started melting through either of our gauges - judging from the readings. The nearest CADWR sensor is about 5 miles East at http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/plotReal?staid=BLD. This season I've measured 54 inches plus probably about 5 more still to melt, while the CADWR measurement is currently showing 34.4 - that's x2 for season total. However, on Dec 21, 22, 23, I measured a fantastic 9 inches, while BLD shows only 3.22 inches - which is x8! Question: Can anyone share details of modification of rain gauges to collect snow for passive melting? Question: Is this vertical tube design likely to somehow trap 2-4x as much rainfall as the same cross-section of rain-gauge? Question: How likely is it that my site actually gets 3 or 4 inches of rain in a 24 hour period, while my neighbor 2 miles away only gets 1-2 inches in the same period? My hilltop at 7200 feet is on the edge of the Stanislaus river valley as the first groud over about 6900 feet in the prevailing storm direction (from the SW); CW4253 is at a similar height, but is behind my ridge and one other also at 7200 feet. BLD is also at 7200 feet, but is in an even more protected location about a mile East of a ridge of about 7300 feet. Neil/. From dshelms at comcast.net Wed Jan 4 09:54:37 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (dshelms@comcast.net) Date: Wed Jan 4 09:54:49 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Measuring Snow Message-ID: <010420061454.13459.43BBE1AB000800FD0000349322058864429C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Hi Neil, The potential cross-section of the tube is very large relative to the catch area of the Peet Pro gauge which may account for the overcatch. Maybe as snow fall diagnally (which is going to be the case at your elevation even with some tree wind blockage), the snow strikes the side of the tube, slides down the tube, and enters the Peet Pro gauge through the connection between the tube and the gauge. The other possibility is the Peet Pro gauge is hosed! I am not a big fan of measuring "melt out" precip. I see after-the-fact precip in Maryland from the unheated gauges days after the snow has fallen (why I advocate non-heated gauge owners to cover their gauges during winter precip situations). For climate and hydrologic applications, the amount and timing of precip is very important so a timing error of hours and days will cause problems which may be very difficult to identify once that are in the data record. I know your station's remote location and power constraints have pushed you towards you tube innovation (which is very creative solution); however, we should try to melt and measure within minutes of the actual snowfall whenever possible. Hopefully, the group will offer some suggestions to this technology challenge (this is in fact a big issue for all remote precip measurement observing systems). Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Neil Hunt" > Here's an interesting instrument design problem... My rain gauge is > modified to collect snow for passive solar melting, but now apparently > over-reads by 2-4 *times*. I'm looking for insight on my modification, or > advice on how to modify it to collect snow for melting, but not over-read > rainfall. Details below. > > I'm operating a remote solar powered weather station reporting via amateur > packet radio (KG6PPD-9), on top a 7200 foot peak about 15 miles west of the > Sierra crest. The station is based on the Peets U2100 with the pro rain > gauge (parabolic shaped collector with drip formation and counting). The > solar panels don't have sufficient power to heat the rain gauge, so I > modified it by adding a passive solar melting tube to the gauge: pictures > at: http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Pictures.html. > > The solar melting tube is a piece of black plastic 3-inch drain pipe. The > Peets pro rain gauge has an 8-square-inch collection area (about 3.19 inch > radius). The inner diameter of 3-inch drain pipe is 3 inches, and the outer > diameter is about 3.3 inches. Some careful shaping yields a pipe with a > razor-edge with the same 3.19 inches diameter as the unmodified rain gauge > collector > (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/DSC_7821.jpg). > Snow that collects in the pipe melts slowly when the sun comes out and the > drips are directed into the raingauge by means of a 3-inch to 2-inch reducer > fitting, and a 3-inch to 3-inch coupler makes a sleeve to prevent snowmelt > or rain from the outside of the collector from tricking into the collection > bucket: > (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/SnowCollector.j > pg). The lip of the gauge is about 12 feet above the ground, currently > about 6 feet above the snow. The site is generally not windy - average > winds of 2-5 mph are common during major rain events. The design of my > collector was motivated by the CA dept of water resources sensors, which > appear to be a similar vertical tube, albeit of much larger diameter and > height. > > 3 Teaspoons of water slowly dripped from a small nozzle yields a measured > .11 or .12 inches of rain, as expected. > > However, in a large storm, the gauge routinely reads 2-4 *times* more rain > than nearby stations, often showing improbably high figures of 3 or 4 inches > of rain in a day while my neighbors are reading 1.5 inches. It's possible > that the orography at the site really does extract a lot more water from the > atmosphere, or it is possible that the design of the snow collector somehow > funnels much more rain than the cross-section of the pipe might indicate. > Note that it isn't a case of measuring 1/100 cms instead of 1/100 inches, > since the 3-Teaspoon test comes out correct, and the multiplier between my > measurement and neighbor's varies quite significantly from one event to the > next. > > Unfortunately, the site is about 3.5 hours drive away from home, and right > now is about 30 minutes of snow-shoeing from the nearest vehicle access - so > access is strictly limited. But I was able to visit on one occasion while > it was raining hard, and during that 30 minutes or so, the 2/10ths collected > in a jar on the ground corresponded closely to the measurement from the > instrument. > > I made a temporary modification by adding a secondary collection vessel to > the instrument drain. Snowfall, freezing, and inability to access until the > collection vessel overflowed made this calibration effort useless, but a > side effect was that there was no path for wind to suck through the drip > counter (since the drip tube was underwater). The gauge still counted > significantly more rain than nearby stations. > > My station data can be viewed at > http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=KG6PPD-9&last=240 (or, if you are > patient, at http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Index.pl) > while the nearest neighbor is at > http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4253&last=240. Note that CW4253 > is not solar powered, and accordingly was subject to an extended power > failure this past weekend. That rain gauge isn't heated either. We had a > major snow event (4-6 feet) over the weekend, which has barely started > melting through either of our gauges - judging from the readings. The > nearest CADWR sensor is about 5 miles East at > http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/plotReal?staid=BLD. This season I've > measured 54 inches plus probably about 5 more still to melt, while the CADWR > measurement is currently showing 34.4 - that's x2 for season total. > However, on Dec 21, 22, 23, I measured a fantastic 9 inches, while BLD shows > only 3.22 inches - which is x8! > > Question: Can anyone share details of modification of rain gauges to collect > snow for passive melting? > > Question: Is this vertical tube design likely to somehow trap 2-4x as much > rainfall as the same cross-section of rain-gauge? > > Question: How likely is it that my site actually gets 3 or 4 inches of rain > in a 24 hour period, while my neighbor 2 miles away only gets 1-2 inches in > the same period? My hilltop at 7200 feet is on the edge of the Stanislaus > river valley as the first groud over about 6900 feet in the prevailing storm > direction (from the SW); CW4253 is at a similar height, but is behind my > ridge and one other also at 7200 feet. BLD is also at 7200 feet, but is in > an even more protected location about a mile East of a ridge of about 7300 > feet. > > Neil/. > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. From leroydl at verizon.net Wed Jan 4 10:14:30 2006 From: leroydl at verizon.net (LeRoy Lambert) Date: Wed Jan 4 10:14:48 2006 Subject: Fw: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? Message-ID: <003501c61141$90df5660$2f01a8c0@LEROY> I have also see the spike. It is in my temp and dew point qc graphs http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=C4803 LeRoy ----- Original Message ----- From: Gerald Buxton To: Discussion of weather data quality issues Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? I have seen this too Jim, on my qc reports. I believe the last time I saw it, I looked back at the weather data link and saw that one of the reportings was way high (I believe it was barometer)... don't know though whether that was actually sent by the WXTrak device, or the packet was decoded wrong by a receiving station. Jerry AR194 N0JY --Original Message Text--- From: Jim McMurry Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 06:57:50 -0600 I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows what might have caused it. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station to me. None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". Jim McMurry C3882 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060104/7ea807fa/attachment.html From john at virginiamountains.com Wed Jan 4 14:46:23 2006 From: john at virginiamountains.com (John Webb) Date: Wed Jan 4 14:46:48 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Steve - Vantage Pro barometer fix In-Reply-To: <20051217013906.40046.qmail@qmail.npsis.com> References: <20051217013906.40046.qmail@qmail.npsis.com> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20060104143937.020cadc8@mail.swva.net> Steve, Have you finalized your fix for the Davis barometer incompatibility? I would be interested in testing this to help it along. It would be nice to have a fix for this before I add another station at nearly 3,000 feet elevation. Anyone know what the status of this problem is with Davis? John Webb CW3212 At 08:39 PM 12/16/2005, you wrote: >It's been known for awhile that the Barometer data sent to APRS/CWOP is >problematic because the sea level reduced pressure is submitted instead of >the expected altimeter pressure. This is most noticable at stations above >a couple thousand feet, expecially during high pressure periods. If you >use the barometer calibration to "fix" the problem, your results will >drift off when the high pressure moves out and low pressure returns. > >I've been writing a program to see if this is easily solvable, and >happily, it is (if the weather software developers put in the fix). > >If the software is controlling the com port, it just needs to get the >BARDATA occasionally (each 1 to 5 minutes). The data provided in the >BARDATA is sufficient to convert the VantagePro sea level barometer >reading to a station pressure, which can then be converted to an altimeter >value. The R reduction ratio in the BARDATA is not useful because it does >not provide sufficient precision to correctly reverse the SLP reduction >calculation. However, the other data in the BARDATA can be used to do >this. The thing that was confusing is that the data item called >VirtualTemp in the Davis docs is misnamed. It is actually the mean >temperature (average of current temp and temp 12 hours in the past). In my >test code, I was able verify the results, and they exactly match the true >raw station pressure. > >If the software is in listen only mode, where it cannot get access to the >BARDATA, the station pressure can still be obtained through calculation. >The hard part here was replicating the humidity correction value (the >Davis docs omit the tables they use). After some digging, I found a >formula that produces a close approximation of this value. With this, and >as long as the software can provide the temp from 12 hours ago from its >log, the station pressure can be calculated. In my testing, the results >were accurate to within .005 inHg or less (typically not more than .001 >inHg off). > >To quickly try this out, I added code in my test program to write to a >data.csv file every two seconds (with the altimeter value for the >barometer), and configured WeatherDisplay to use this as its input and set >WeatherDisplay to send data to APRS. My station is now providing good >barometer data. Now I will work on code to have my program send directly >to APRS so that people who only use WeatherLink can use it to provide >APRS data with altimeter barometer data. > >One interesting thing I noticed was that once I started using the >altimeter value, I set the barometer calibration back to 0 and found that >the altimeter value was very close to that reported by the nearest >airport. I think it might be the case that most of the calibration people >do on their VantagePro barometer is because of this SLP/Altimeter issue, >not because of the barometer actually needing calibration. > >If anyone is interested in source code for incorporating this technique in >their software, or are interested in getting a copy of my program for >testing, please contact me. > >While I was doing this I also found a trick for forcing the VantagePro to >update the barometer more frequently than 15 minutes. I can share that as well. > >Steve From mark at markwyman.com Wed Jan 4 15:25:15 2006 From: mark at markwyman.com (Mark Wyman) Date: Wed Jan 4 15:23:46 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Measuring Snow In-Reply-To: <20060104071836.DA273C3F5C@mail01.powweb.com> Message-ID: <002401c6116c$f8a76d20$40280a0a@mvanattadt739> The only things I can think of is there is a hole in the glue, allowing water to cascade down the side of the pipe and collect in the glue joint, then drip through the hole adding to the total. The most remote of ideas has to due with Ventura Effect, where air blows over an orifice causing it to oscillate. The air oscillation could bring in more droplets of water than would be seen otherwise. To stop the oscillation would be tricky, and I am not sure how to accomplish this. Otherwise you may just be experiencing orography effects like you suggest. 3 miles from me to the south gets about 25% more rain in the summer than we do, and this last year, areas 5 miles to our west got 150% more. We live in hills, but our proximity to the lakes causes a surprisingly huge impact on rain quantity. The only way to really verify your setup is to set a manual collector next to it and later compare the two, you cannot rely on the precip readings of a neighbor 3 miles away to verify your readings. -Mark -----Original Message----- From spamfree at pensom.org Wed Jan 4 15:33:19 2006 From: spamfree at pensom.org (spamfree@pensom.org) Date: Wed Jan 4 15:33:44 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Re: Steve - Vantage Pro barometer fix Message-ID: <20060104201348.26DB848997@mail.pensom.org> Hello John , I'm getting closer. I'm pretty confident of the algorithms at this point. I've been doing a fair amount of testing. I just uploaded a new version of everything. The VPLive program now calculates and displays running averages, etc. that are used to put together the APRS/CWOP data packet. This includes calculating the unit vector average of wind direction. It also displays what it would be sending to APRS/CWOP if the sending part were done (that is the next thing I will tackle - but I may in the interim generate the file that VWAPRS looks for to send APRS data, and then that freeware program could be used). The CWOP data VPLive generates follows the specifications described in the CWOPS manual. This is the common standard for observations that is also used by the NWS/FAA automated (ASOS) stations. The link to the latest is here: http://www.pensom.org/weather/vptools/vptools.html On that page there is also a Vantage Pro Pressure Calculator that lets you play around with the pressure algorithms and see what they do. I also have a link for the Delphi source code unit that contains all the algorithms so other weather program makers can easily incorporate this into their programs if they want. Best regards, Steve (CW4409) ======= At 2006-01-04, 12:46:23 you wrote: ======= >Steve, > >Have you finalized your fix for the Davis barometer incompatibility? I >would be interested in testing this to help it along. It would be nice to >have a fix for this before I add another station at nearly 3,000 feet >elevation. Anyone know what the status of this problem is with Davis? > >John Webb >CW3212 > From mark at markwyman.com Wed Jan 4 16:36:59 2006 From: mark at markwyman.com (Mark Wyman) Date: Wed Jan 4 16:35:27 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Measuring Snow In-Reply-To: <002401c6116c$f8a76d20$40280a0a@mvanattadt739> Message-ID: <003301c61176$fe1a56f0$40280a0a@mvanattadt739> As for melting: Use a deep-cycle lead-acid battery to store solar energy for the stormy days, some method of detecting the weight of liquid in your gauge (strain gauge on an arm that carries the weight of your sensors), and then turning on the heater until the weight lets up. This will get you readings during a storm, and allow the tube to be smaller in length. However it would be good to determine how much energy is needed to melt 5ft of snow at what the typical low storm temperature is. Then your battery should store 2x this. You should insulate the gauge as well. You also need to regulate the temperature of the heater so that you don't loose precipitation to evaporation from having too warm of a surface, say just get it to 35 degrees and stop heating, wait till it gets to 33, check weight, if still heavy turn element back on, empty weight, turn it off. Would have to experiment with temperatures a bit. Some 12V automotive lightbulbs spread about on the inside of the rain gauge would be excellent heaters, and would warm all of the surfaces, including the gauge, where you don't want ice to form. Just have to hope the birds don't discover that by resting on your gauge that they will get warmed toes. Looks like you may have enough solar panels to accomplish this. One other thought, are you sure there isn't ice on the measurement system causing errors? While your tube may be warm, the sensor may not be. -Mark -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Mark Wyman Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:25 PM To: 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' Subject: RE: [wxqc] Measuring Snow The only things I can think of is there is a hole in the glue, allowing water to cascade down the side of the pipe and collect in the glue joint, then drip through the hole adding to the total. The most remote of ideas has to due with Ventura Effect, where air blows over an orifice causing it to oscillate. The air oscillation could bring in more droplets of water than would be seen otherwise. To stop the oscillation would be tricky, and I am not sure how to accomplish this. Otherwise you may just be experiencing orography effects like you suggest. 3 miles from me to the south gets about 25% more rain in the summer than we do, and this last year, areas 5 miles to our west got 150% more. We live in hills, but our proximity to the lakes causes a surprisingly huge impact on rain quantity. The only way to really verify your setup is to set a manual collector next to it and later compare the two, you cannot rely on the precip readings of a neighbor 3 miles away to verify your readings. -Mark -----Original Message----- _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. From trkester1 at comcast.net Wed Jan 4 17:32:46 2006 From: trkester1 at comcast.net (Terry Kester (comcast)) Date: Wed Jan 4 17:32:46 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? In-Reply-To: <003501c61141$90df5660$2f01a8c0@LEROY> Message-ID: <043001c6117e$c9911d80$6a0019ac@trkdell> Well, I may as well join in. I'm in Taylor MI and had the same spike. And I send the same data to wunderground and they didn't get the spike so me thinks something went a little haywire with CWOP QC. Terry _____ From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of LeRoy Lambert Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:15 AM To: WXQC Subject: Fw: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? I have also see the spike. It is in my temp and dew point qc graphs http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=C4803 LeRoy ----- Original Message ----- From: Gerald Buxton To: Discussion of weather data quality issues Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Spike in quality report? I have seen this too Jim, on my qc reports. I believe the last time I saw it, I looked back at the weather data link and saw that one of the reportings was way high (I believe it was barometer)... don't know though whether that was actually sent by the WXTrak device, or the packet was decoded wrong by a receiving station. Jerry AR194 N0JY --Original Message Text--- From: Jim McMurry Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 06:57:50 -0600 I'm just wondering if anyone has seen this happen before and knows what might have caused it. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060103&addnl=AR825&Ad d+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl Just prior to 1000Z it shows an extreme spike that doesn't show up in my logs. The same thing happened to AR825 which is the closest station to me. None of the other close stations seemed to have the same thing happen. Also wondering whether a spike like this affects our averages or if the system recognizes it as an anomaly and "throws it out". Jim McMurry C3882 _____ _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060104/8e9694ca/attachment.html From sam at wa4phy.net Wed Jan 4 21:45:41 2006 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Wed Jan 4 21:45:44 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Another pressure spike? Message-ID: <43BC8855.5030709@wa4phy.net> Take a look at this. Seems to be just my station on the baro spikes, however it's not like the one we had the other day. I can't really explain this one at all. Station has been up all day, and as far as I know, nothing interesting has happened to cause the spikes... Ideas? http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/AR471?date=20060105 -- Snowman From dshelms at comcast.net Wed Jan 4 22:32:47 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Wed Jan 4 22:33:01 2006 Subject: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43BC935F.8080102@comcast.net> Hi Charles, Sounds like you have the sensor siting well in hand. Russ has a radiation resource page you may wish to visit: http://www.wxqa.com/shields.html Peet uses the passive shield shown in these pages and I think it is a good replacement passive shield for the La Crosse: http://www.onsetcomp.com/Products/Product_Pages/temperature_pages/solar_radiation_shield.html http://www.provantage.com/davis-instruments-7714~7DAVS008.htm http://www.metdata.com/radiation_shield/rad_shield.htm http://www.ambientweather.com/77rash.html Dave CW0351 Charles M. Owen wrote: >I will try to get a picture up, but currently I have no daylight hours >available to get a picture. > >I have some modest experience from my ozone forecasting days when I set up >equipment at my county's ozone sites. I had "real" NIST temp probes and such >at my disposal at that time. > >My current site is not quite as good as those monitoring buildings due to >some limitations I currently have. My temp/RH/Sending Unit is at 2m between >the anemometer (at about 10m) on the house and the rain gauge as far out in >the yard as I can place it. I guess I could get an R.M.Young 5 platter >shield at some point. > >-----Original Message----- >From: dshelms@comcast.net [mailto:dshelms@comcast.net] >Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:26 PM >To: Discussion of weather data quality issues; >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >Cc: Charles M. Owen >Subject: Re: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature > >Hi Charles, > >Welcome to the group! > >We have seen some radiation shield problems with the LaCrosse stations in >the past, especially the WS2300. These problems have been mitigated >successfully with replacement of the LaCrosse "cone" shield which has very >high restricted ventilation, with a standard "bee hive" or Gill shield who's >horizontal plates allow the sensors to "breath" without solar contamination. > >In the limited period of record for your station's operation, we are seeing >a high "negative bias" (e.g. warmer than the surrounding stations, after an >elevation correction). This is very preliminary info, and it will take more >time to get a better picture or performance. > >To help us better assess your station's performance, could you please upload >digital pictures of your weather station sensors to the FLICKR page using >the instructions on this page: >http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brookevilleweather/flickr_setup.html > > >Thanks, > >Dave >CW0351 > >P.S. Hey Philip: I don't think the most recent FLICKR "CWOP Metadata >Group" member's pictures with "CWOP" tags are getting embedded in the WXQC >station pages. > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- >From: "Charles M. Owen" > > >>Hi, I am sort of a newbie. I have only had my Christmas present La Crosse >>WS-3120TWC up for two weeks. These are my first QC reports. I am 27 miles >>from the closest known site that I am compared with. When should I start >>worrying about these readings? >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * >>FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * >>(KNT) >>02-JAN-2006 0813 CW4870 *1013.(-0.2)* >>59(-6.3)*51.8(-5.3)*199.(132.)*4.34(-2.6) >>02-JAN-2006 1037 CW4870 *1011.(0.45)* >>60(-6.9)*53.5(-6.2)*192.(6.08)*4.34( -4) >>02-JAN-2006 1052 CW4870 *1011.(0.85)* >>60(-6.9)*53.1(-5.8)*190.(8.08)*5.21(-4.8) >>02-JAN-2006 1102 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* >>60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*182.(135.)*6.08(-5.3) >>02-JAN-2006 1117 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* >>60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*203.(114.)*6.95(-6.2) >>02-JAN-2006 1132 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* >>61(-7.8)*53.7(-6.2)*249.(68.9)*3.48(-2.7) >>02-JAN-2006 1147 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* >>60(-6.8)*53.5(-5.9)*206.(111.)*7.82( -7) >>02-JAN-2006 1202 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* 59(-6.9)*53.5(-4.5)*236.( >>19)*4.34(-3.6) >>02-JAN-2006 Errs CW4870 * 0/87 * 15/87 * 0/87 * 1/87 * >>1/87 >>02-JAN-2006 Smry CW4870 *-0.3( >>0.5)*-3.7(2.79)*-1.9(2.76)*43.3(76.2)*-3.3(3.01) >> >>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://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C4870?date=20060103 >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>wxqc mailing list >>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >> >> > > > > > > From cs at digilib.com Wed Jan 4 22:35:46 2006 From: cs at digilib.com (Claude Schoch) Date: Wed Jan 4 22:35:41 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Another pressure spike? References: <43BC8855.5030709@wa4phy.net> Message-ID: <000a01c611a9$1e147440$6500a8c0@ClaudeLaptop> I had one at the same time too. It's just some kind of processing error after we send our data that generates the spikes. I think these are going to happen from time to time and if the surrounding stations also have them I just ignore them. It would be nice to filter them out of the data stream before we see them. Claude Schoch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Drinkard" To: "Discussion of data quality issues" Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:45 PM Subject: [wxqc] Another pressure spike? > Take a look at this. Seems to be just my station on the baro spikes, > however it's not like the one we had the other day. I can't really > explain this one at all. Station has been up all day, and as far as I > know, nothing interesting has happened to cause the spikes... Ideas? > > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/AR471?date=20060105 > > -- > Snowman > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > From echelmeier_d at msn.com Wed Jan 4 22:46:35 2006 From: echelmeier_d at msn.com (Darren Echelmeier) Date: Wed Jan 4 22:46:39 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Measuring Snow References: <010420061454.13459.43BBE1AB000800FD0000349322058864429C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: Dave, This is interesting advice, being fairly new to weather reporting I was wondering how the snowmelt effected reporting. I assume I should either cover my gauge during snow periods or buy a heater. Darren CW2314 ----- Original Message ----- From: dshelms@comcast.net To: Discussion of weather data quality issues ; wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Cc: Neil Hunt Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Measuring Snow Hi Neil, The potential cross-section of the tube is very large relative to the catch area of the Peet Pro gauge which may account for the overcatch. Maybe as snow fall diagnally (which is going to be the case at your elevation even with some tree wind blockage), the snow strikes the side of the tube, slides down the tube, and enters the Peet Pro gauge through the connection between the tube and the gauge. The other possibility is the Peet Pro gauge is hosed! I am not a big fan of measuring "melt out" precip. I see after-the-fact precip in Maryland from the unheated gauges days after the snow has fallen (why I advocate non-heated gauge owners to cover their gauges during winter precip situations). For climate and hydrologic applications, the amount and timing of precip is very important so a timing error of hours and days will cause problems which may be very difficult to identify once that are in the data record. I know your station's remote location and power constraints have pushed you towards you tube innovation (which is very creative solution); however, we should try to melt and measure within minutes of the actual snowfall whenever possible. Hopefully, the group will offer some suggestions to this technology challenge (this is in fact a big issue for all remote precip measurement observing systems). Dave CW0351 -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Neil Hunt" > > Here's an interesting instrument design problem... My rain gauge is > modified to collect snow for passive solar melting, but now apparently > over-reads by 2-4 *times*. I'm looking for insight on my modification, or > advice on how to modify it to collect snow for melting, but not over-read > rainfall. Details below. > > I'm operating a remote solar powered weather station reporting via amateur > packet radio (KG6PPD-9), on top a 7200 foot peak about 15 miles west of the > Sierra crest. The station is based on the Peets U2100 with the pro rain > gauge (parabolic shaped collector with drip formation and counting). The > solar panels don't have sufficient power to heat the rain gauge, so I > modified it by adding a passive solar melting tube to the gauge: pictures > at: http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Pictures.html. > > The solar melting tube is a piece of black plastic 3-inch drain pipe. The > Peets pro rain gauge has an 8-square-inch collection area (about 3.19 inch > radius). The inner diameter of 3-inch drain pipe is 3 inches, and the outer > diameter is about 3.3 inches. Some careful shaping yields a pipe with a > razor-edge with the same 3.19 inches diameter as the unmodified rain gauge > collector > (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/DSC_7821.jpg). > Snow that collects in the pipe melts slowly when the sun comes out and the > drips are directed into the raingauge by means of a 3-inch to 2-inch reducer > fitting, and a 3-inch to 3-inch coupler makes a sleeve to prevent snowmelt > or rain from the outside of the collector from tricking into the collection > bucket: > (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/SnowCollector.j > pg). The lip of the gauge is about 12 feet above the ground, currently > about 6 feet above the snow. The site is generally not windy - average > winds of 2-5 mph are common during major rain events. The design of my > collector was motivated by the CA dept of water resources sensors, which > appear to be a similar vertical tube, albeit of much larger diameter and > height. > > 3 Teaspoons of water slowly dripped from a small nozzle yields a measured > .11 or .12 inches of rain, as expected. > > However, in a large storm, the gauge routinely reads 2-4 *times* more rain > than nearby stations, often showing improbably high figures of 3 or 4 inches > of rain in a day while my neighbors are reading 1.5 inches. It's possible > that the orography at the site really does extract a lot more water from the > atmosphere, or it is possible that the design of the snow collector somehow > funnels much more rain than the cross-section of the pipe might indicate. > Note that it isn't a case of measuring 1/100 cms instead of 1/100 inches, > since the 3-Teaspoon test comes out correct, and the multiplier between my > measurement and neighbor's varies quite significantly from one event to the > next. > > Unfortunately, the site is about 3.5 hours drive away from home, and right > now is about 30 minutes of snow-shoeing from the nearest vehicle access - so > access is strictly limited. But I was able to visit on one occasion while > it was raining hard, and during that 30 minutes or so, the 2/10ths collected > in a jar on the ground corresponded closely to the measurement from the > instrument. > > I made a temporary modification by adding a secondary collection vessel to > the instrument drain. Snowfall, freezing, and inability to access until the > collection vessel overflowed made this calibration effort useless, but a > side effect was that there was no path for wind to suck through the drip > counter (since the drip tube was underwater). The gauge still counted > significantly more rain than nearby stations. > > My station data can be viewed at > http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=KG6PPD-9&last=240 (or, if you are > patient, at http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Index.pl) > while the nearest neighbor is at > http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4253&last=240. Note that CW4253 > is not solar powered, and accordingly was subject to an extended power > failure this past weekend. That rain gauge isn't heated either. We had a > major snow event (4-6 feet) over the weekend, which has barely started > melting through either of our gauges - judging from the readings. The > nearest CADWR sensor is about 5 miles East at > http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/plotReal?staid=BLD. This season I've > measured 54 inches plus probably about 5 more still to melt, while the CADWR > measurement is currently showing 34.4 - that's x2 for season total. > However, on Dec 21, 22, 23, I measured a fantastic 9 inches, while BLD shows > only 3.22 inches - which is x8! > > Question: Can anyone share details of modification of rain gauges to collect > snow for passive melting? > > Question: Is this vertical tube design likely to somehow trap 2-4x as much > rainfall as the same cross-section of rain-gauge? > > Question: How likely is it that my site actually gets 3 or 4 inches of rain > in a 24 hour period, while my neighbor 2 miles away only gets 1-2 inches in > the same period? My hilltop at 7200 feet is on the edge of the Stanislaus > river valley as the first groud over about 6900 feet in the prevailing storm > direction (from the SW); CW4253 is at a similar height, but is behind my > ridge and one other also at 7200 feet. BLD is also at 7200 feet, but is in > an even more protected location about a mile East of a ridge of about 7300 > feet. > > Neil/. > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. _______________________________________________ wxqc mailing list wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060104/c0fbab1b/attachment.html From dshelms at comcast.net Wed Jan 4 23:20:49 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Wed Jan 4 23:20:52 2006 Subject: [wxqc] CWOP Station Metadata Database on the FLICKR Web Server Enrollment Status In-Reply-To: <000a01c611a9$1e147440$6500a8c0@ClaudeLaptop> References: <43BC8855.5030709@wa4phy.net> <000a01c611a9$1e147440$6500a8c0@ClaudeLaptop> Message-ID: <43BC9EA1.6030008@comcast.net> Hi All: We are up to 13 folks associated with the FLICKR "CWOP Station Metadata Database" Group which supplements the existing CWOP station information: http://www.flickr.com/groups_members.gne?id=25826952@N00 I know it takes a little while to setup a FLICKR account (signup, upload, and tag the pictures), but the results really look good on the Gladstone CWOP Station Pages. Here are the setup procedures for FLICKR: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brookevilleweather/flickr_setup.html These CWOP have the station images uploaded to FLICKR "embedded" on their CWOP Station Page: http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C0146 http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C0351 http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C0720 http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C2217 http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C4566 Here is the most beautiful picture of the 60 that have been uploaded: Nice job Claude! http://www.flickr.com/photos/56314238@N00/79054003/ These station's pictures are not embedded in the CWOP Station Page as you need to upload and tag with "CWOP" at least 4 station pictures to your FLICKR account: http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C0499 http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C2014 http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C2428 http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C3507 This station does not have his pictures embedded in his CWOP Station Page because his FLICKR user name does not include his CWOP station ID: http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C0003 I'm not sure why these station's pictures are not embedded on their CWOP Station Pages, except maybe not enough time has passed to allow the FLICKR censors to approve the accounts and allow public file sharing: Enrolled Dec 19th http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C3882 Enrolled Dec 31st http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C4199 Enrolled Dec 22nd http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C4495 Cheers, Dave CW0351 From dshelms at comcast.net Wed Jan 4 23:44:17 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Wed Jan 4 23:44:21 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Measuring Snow In-Reply-To: References: <010420061454.13459.43BBE1AB000800FD0000349322058864429C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: <43BCA421.7020101@comcast.net> Hi Darren, Pretty much, but swapping out a rain gauge will be expensive. I know of one person who used a heated pipe wrap to warm up his gauge enough to melt the snow in close to real-time. My Peet heated gauge has two capacitors under the funnel along with the wired AC voltage to drive the capacitors. Dave CW0351 Darren Echelmeier wrote: > Dave, > This is interesting advice, being fairly new to weather reporting I > was wondering how the snowmelt effected reporting. I assume I should > either cover my gauge during snow periods or buy a heater. > > Darren > CW2314 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* dshelms@comcast.net > *To:* Discussion of weather data quality issues > ; > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamilynet > *Cc:* Neil Hunt > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [wxqc] Measuring Snow > > Hi Neil, > > The potential cross-section of the tube is very large relative to > the catch area of the Peet Pro gauge which may account for the > overcatch. Maybe as snow fall diagnally (which is going to be the > case at your elevation even with some tree wind blockage), the > snow strikes the side of the tube, slides down the tube, and > enters the Peet Pro gauge through the connection between the tube > and the gauge. > > The other possibility is the Peet Pro gauge is hosed! > > I am not a big fan of measuring "melt out" precip. I see > after-the-fact precip in Maryland from the unheated gauges days > after the snow has fallen (why I advocate non-heated gauge owners > to cover their gauges during winter precip situations). For > climate and hydrologic applications, the amount and timing of > precip is very important so a timing error of hours and days will > cause problems which may be very difficult to identify once that > are in the data record. > > I know your station's remote location and power constraints have > pushed you towards you tube innovation (which is very creative > solution); however, we should try to melt and measure within > minutes of the actual snowfall whenever possible. Hopefully, the > group will offer some suggestions to this technology challenge > (this is in fact a big issue for all remote precip measurement > observing systems). > > Dave > CW0351 > > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Neil Hunt" > > > Here's an interesting instrument design problem... My rain gauge is > > modified to collect snow for passive solar melting, but now > apparently > > over-reads by 2-4 *times*. I'm looking for insight on my > modification, or > > advice on how to modify it to collect snow for melting, but not > over-read > > rainfall. Details below. > > > > I'm operating a remote solar powered weather station reporting > via amateur > > packet radio (KG6PPD-9), on top a 7200 foot peak about 15 miles > west of the > > Sierra crest. The station is based on the Peets U2100 with the > pro rain > > gauge (parabolic shaped collector with drip formation and > counting). The > > solar panels don't have sufficient power to heat the rain gauge, > so I > > modified it by adding a passive solar melting tube to the gauge: > pictures > > at: > http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Pictures.html > > > > The solar melting tube is a piece of black plastic 3-inch drain > pipe. The > > Peets pro rain gauge has an 8-square-inch collection area (about > 3.19 inch > > radius). The inner diameter of 3-inch drain pipe is 3 inches, > and the outer > > diameter is about 3.3 inches. Some careful shaping yields a > pipe with a > > razor-edge with the same 3.19 inches diameter as the unmodified > rain gauge > > collector > > > (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/DSC_7821.jpg). > > Snow that collects in the pipe melts slowly when the sun comes > out and the > > drips are directed into the raingauge by means of a 3-inch to > 2-inch reducer > > fitting, and a 3-inch to 3-inch coupler makes a sleeve to > prevent snowmelt > > or rain from the outside of the collector from tricking into the > collection > > bucket: > > > (http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Images/SnowCollector.j > > pg). The lip of the gauge is about 12 feet above the ground, > currently > > about 6 feet above the snow. The site is generally not windy - > average > > winds of 2-5 mph are common during major rain events. The > design of my > > collector was motivated by the CA dept of water resources > sensors, which > > appear to be a similar vertical tube, albeit of much larger > diameter and > > height. > > > > 3 Teaspoons of water slowly dripped from a small nozzle yields a > measured > > .11 or .12 inches of rain, as expected. > > > > However, in a large storm, the gauge routinely reads 2-4 *times* > more rain > > than nearby stations, often showing improbably high figures of 3 > or 4 inches > > of rain in a day while my neighbors are reading 1.5 inches. > It's possible > > that the orography at the site really does extract a lot more > water from the > > atmosphere, or it is possible that the design of the snow > collector somehow > > funnels much more rain than the cross-section of the pipe might > indicate. > > Note that it isn't a case of measuring 1/100 cms instead of > 1/100 inches, > > since the 3-Teaspoon test comes out correct, and the multiplier > between my > > measurement and neighbor's varies quite significantly from one > event to the > > next. > > > > Unfortunately, the site is about 3.5 hours drive away from home, > and right > > now is about 30 minutes of snow-shoeing from the nearest vehicle > access - so > > access is strictly limited. But I was able to visit on one > occasion while > > it was raining hard, and during that 30 minutes or so, the > 2/10ths collected > > in a jar on the ground corresponded closely to the measurement > from the > > instrument. > > > > I made a temporary modification by adding a secondary collection > vessel to > > the instrument drain. Snowfall, freezing, and inability to > access until the > > collection vessel overflowed made this calibration effort > useless, but a > > side effect was that there was no path for wind to suck through > the drip > > counter (since the drip tube was underwater). The gauge still > counted > > significantly more rain than nearby stations. > > > > My station data can be viewed at > > http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=KG6PPD-9&last=240 > (or, > if you are > > patient, at > http://tamarackmountain.com/TamarackMountain/Weather/Index.pl) > > while the nearest neighbor is at > > http://findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4253&last=240 > . Note > that CW4253 > > is not solar powered, and accordingly was subject to an extended > power > > failure this past weekend. That rain gauge isn't heated > either. We had a > > major snow event (4-6 feet) over the weekend, which has barely > started > > melting through either of our gauges - judging from the > readings. The > > nearest CADWR sensor is about 5 miles East at > > http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/plotReal?staid=BLD. This > season I've > > measured 54 inches plus probably about 5 more still to melt, > while the CADWR > > measurement is currently showing 34.4 - that's x2 for season total. > > However, on Dec 21, 22, 23, I measured a fantastic 9 inches, > while BLD shows > > only 3.22 inches - which is x8! > > > > Question: Can anyone share details of modification of rain > gauges to collect > > snow for passive melting? > > > > Question: Is this vertical tube design likely to somehow trap > 2-4x as much > > rainfall as the same cross-section of rain-gauge? > > > > Question: How likely is it that my site actually gets 3 or 4 > inches of rain > > in a 24 hour period, while my neighbor 2 miles away only gets > 1-2 inches in > > the same period? My hilltop at 7200 feet is on the edge of the > Stanislaus > > river valley as the first groud over about 6900 feet in the > prevailing storm > > direction (from the SW); CW4253 is at a similar height, but is > behind my > > ridge and one other also at 7200 feet. BLD is also at 7200 > feet, but is in > > an even more protected location about a mile East of a ridge of > about 7300 > > feet. > > > > Neil/. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wxqc mailing list > > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamilynet > > > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamilynet > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >wxqc mailing list >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > >The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > From deadeye916 at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 00:05:22 2006 From: deadeye916 at gmail.com (Dan Crooks) Date: Thu Jan 5 00:05:26 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Measuring Snow In-Reply-To: <43BCA421.7020101@comcast.net> References: <010420061454.13459.43BBE1AB000800FD0000349322058864429C03040A089C0B@comcast.net> <43BCA421.7020101@comcast.net> Message-ID: If your interested I have this post from another forum I frequent and it lists an contact for rain bucket covers. Funny you should ask.. I do have a solution that works for me. the KAP. > This is a cover (the blue thing) for the rain bucket. It's used to cover > the bucket during the winter to prevent accumulation of snow and ice. This > is better than anything I have seen . It goes on and off easily, yet won't > blow off in the strong Iowa winter winds. > IF you are interested contact .Chann Barnhart [channsb@execpc.com] > directly The post contains pictures but I think you would need to join to view them. I will let you decide, here's the link . On 1/4/06, Dave Helms wrote: > > Hi Darren, > > Pretty much, but swapping out a rain gauge will be expensive. I know of > one person who used a heated pipe wrap to warm up his gauge enough to > melt the snow in close to real-time. My Peet heated gauge has two > capacitors under the funnel along with the wired AC voltage to drive the > capacitors. > > Dave > CW0351 > > Dan CW1789 -- Browns Valley, California http://weather.dcrooks.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060104/7f14b742/attachment.html From wd6cmu at earthlink.net Thu Jan 5 00:42:06 2006 From: wd6cmu at earthlink.net (Eric Williams) Date: Thu Jan 5 00:42:15 2006 Subject: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature In-Reply-To: <43BC935F.8080102@comcast.net> References: <43BC935F.8080102@comcast.net> Message-ID: <43BCB1AE.4080202@earthlink.net> Here's the one I built over Christmas: http://home.earthlink.net/~wd6cmu/images/radshield.jpg -- eric Dave Helms wrote: > Hi Charles, > > Sounds like you have the sensor siting well in hand. Russ has a > radiation resource page you may wish to visit: > http://www.wxqa.com/shields.html > > Peet uses the passive shield shown in these pages and I think it is a > good replacement passive shield for the La Crosse: > http://www.onsetcomp.com/Products/Product_Pages/temperature_pages/solar_radiation_shield.html > > http://www.provantage.com/davis-instruments-7714~7DAVS008.htm > http://www.metdata.com/radiation_shield/rad_shield.htm > http://www.ambientweather.com/77rash.html > > Dave > CW0351 > > Charles M. Owen wrote: From jmcmurry at mwt.net Thu Jan 5 08:08:22 2006 From: jmcmurry at mwt.net (Jim McMurry) Date: Thu Jan 5 08:47:57 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Another Spike to look at Message-ID: Mike, Just noticed another instance of spikes in observed data that you may want to look at. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060105&addnl=AR825&Ad d+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl I also report to Weatherunderground and the raw data can be seen at http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KWIMAUST1&m onth=1&day=4&year=2006 Just don't want to lose my green check marks. Thanks. Jim McMurry C3882 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060105/d25bb2a8/attachment.html From charles at owentech.com Thu Jan 5 09:54:29 2006 From: charles at owentech.com (Charles Owen) Date: Thu Jan 5 09:54:31 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Another Spike to look at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am concerned about data dropouts that I can not explain. My data goes to WU at the same times and is posted. Glitch/Spike related? -----Original Message----- From: Jim McMurry [mailto:jmcmurry@mwt.net] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:08 AM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Another Spike to look at Mike, Just noticed another instance of spikes in observed data that you may want to look at. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060105 &addnl=AR825&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl I also report to Weatherunderground and the raw data can be seen at http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KWIMAUST1 &month=1&day=4&year=2006 Just don't want to lose my green check marks. Thanks. Jim McMurry C3882 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060105/129c8105/attachment-0001.html From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Thu Jan 5 11:29:11 2006 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Mike Barth) Date: Thu Jan 5 11:29:16 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Another Spike to look at In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is the same type of spike as on 1/2. It now appears that this is related to communications problems in downloading the raw data, and appears to be happening every day sometime between 08-10 GMT. We're now trapping the raw data so that we can examine it the next time this happens. Thanks to all for reporting the spike. Please let me know the next time it happens, so I can look at the raw data. Mike On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Charles Owen wrote: > I am concerned about data dropouts that I can not explain. My data goes to > WU at the same times and is posted. Glitch/Spike related? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim McMurry [mailto:jmcmurry@mwt.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:08 AM > To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > Subject: [wxqc] Another Spike to look at > > > > Mike, > > > > Just noticed another instance of spikes in observed data that you may want > to look at. > > > > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C3882?date=20060105 > dd+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl> > &addnl=AR825&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl > > > > I also report to Weatherunderground and the raw data can be seen at > > > > http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KWIMAUST1 > month=1&day=4&year=2006> &month=1&day=4&year=2006 > > > > Just don't want to lose my green check marks. Thanks. > > > > Jim McMurry > > C3882 > > From tomh at sprynet.com Thu Jan 5 12:51:12 2006 From: tomh at sprynet.com (Tom Hargrave) Date: Thu Jan 5 12:51:21 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Re: wxqc Digest, Vol 15, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <200601051200.1eUytk5l83Nl3qa0@aaron.mail.atl.earthlink.net> References: <200601051200.1eUytk5l83Nl3qa0@aaron.mail.atl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <43BD5C90.6080208@sprynet.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060105/2ad1a173/attachment.html From harold.lemon at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 5 19:50:09 2006 From: harold.lemon at sbcglobal.net (Harold Lemon) Date: Thu Jan 5 19:51:10 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Another Article on CWOP Message-ID: <000d01c6125b$27776da0$6402a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Here is another article on CWOP that appeared in the Winter 2005/2006 issue of Bay Breezes Spotter newsletter by NWS SF Bay Area/Monterey. The article is on page 11. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr/newsletter_fall05.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060105/e5321e83/attachment.html From cmowen at att.net Thu Jan 5 09:03:13 2006 From: cmowen at att.net (Charles M. Owen) Date: Fri Jan 6 08:50:09 2006 Subject: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature In-Reply-To: <43BC935F.8080102@comcast.net> Message-ID: Thanks, I still have a lot to learn, only now I don't have Engineers to make recommendations about siting and the county footing the expense of shelter, power, and phone lines out in the open. The QC report here is much more in-depth than maintaining min/max and comparison points-in-time readings. I gather that after a few weeks will be a better picture. I hope to get a handle on what the report is really saying. Distance to other stations and (as with anywhere) there are unique dynamics of the great valley that will leave me scratching my head. Weatherbug has some units closer to me than CWOP, but that don't help I guess. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Helms [mailto:dshelms@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:33 PM To: Charles M. Owen Cc: 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' Subject: Re: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature Hi Charles, Sounds like you have the sensor siting well in hand. Russ has a radiation resource page you may wish to visit: http://www.wxqa.com/shields.html Peet uses the passive shield shown in these pages and I think it is a good replacement passive shield for the La Crosse: http://www.onsetcomp.com/Products/Product_Pages/temperature_pages/solar_radi ation_shield.html http://www.provantage.com/davis-instruments-7714~7DAVS008.htm http://www.metdata.com/radiation_shield/rad_shield.htm http://www.ambientweather.com/77rash.html Dave CW0351 Charles M. Owen wrote: >I will try to get a picture up, but currently I have no daylight hours >available to get a picture. > >I have some modest experience from my ozone forecasting days when I set up >equipment at my county's ozone sites. I had "real" NIST temp probes and such >at my disposal at that time. > >My current site is not quite as good as those monitoring buildings due to >some limitations I currently have. My temp/RH/Sending Unit is at 2m between >the anemometer (at about 10m) on the house and the rain gauge as far out in >the yard as I can place it. I guess I could get an R.M.Young 5 platter >shield at some point. > >-----Original Message----- >From: dshelms@comcast.net [mailto:dshelms@comcast.net] >Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:26 PM >To: Discussion of weather data quality issues; >wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >Cc: Charles M. Owen >Subject: Re: [wxqc] CW4870 Temperature > >Hi Charles, > >Welcome to the group! > >We have seen some radiation shield problems with the LaCrosse stations in >the past, especially the WS2300. These problems have been mitigated >successfully with replacement of the LaCrosse "cone" shield which has very >high restricted ventilation, with a standard "bee hive" or Gill shield who's >horizontal plates allow the sensors to "breath" without solar contamination. > >In the limited period of record for your station's operation, we are seeing >a high "negative bias" (e.g. warmer than the surrounding stations, after an >elevation correction). This is very preliminary info, and it will take more >time to get a better picture or performance. > >To help us better assess your station's performance, could you please upload >digital pictures of your weather station sensors to the FLICKR page using >the instructions on this page: >http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brookevilleweather/flickr_setup.html > > >Thanks, > >Dave >CW0351 > >P.S. Hey Philip: I don't think the most recent FLICKR "CWOP Metadata >Group" member's pictures with "CWOP" tags are getting embedded in the WXQC >station pages. > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- >From: "Charles M. Owen" > > >>Hi, I am sort of a newbie. I have only had my Christmas present La Crosse >>WS-3120TWC up for two weeks. These are my first QC reports. I am 27 miles >>from the closest known site that I am compared with. When should I start >>worrying about these readings? >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * >>FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * >>(KNT) >>02-JAN-2006 0813 CW4870 *1013.(-0.2)* >>59(-6.3)*51.8(-5.3)*199.(132.)*4.34(-2.6) >>02-JAN-2006 1037 CW4870 *1011.(0.45)* >>60(-6.9)*53.5(-6.2)*192.(6.08)*4.34( -4) >>02-JAN-2006 1052 CW4870 *1011.(0.85)* >>60(-6.9)*53.1(-5.8)*190.(8.08)*5.21(-4.8) >>02-JAN-2006 1102 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* >>60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*182.(135.)*6.08(-5.3) >>02-JAN-2006 1117 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* >>60(-6.8)*53.1(-5.6)*203.(114.)*6.95(-6.2) >>02-JAN-2006 1132 CW4870 *1011.(0.63)* >>61(-7.8)*53.7(-6.2)*249.(68.9)*3.48(-2.7) >>02-JAN-2006 1147 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* >>60(-6.8)*53.5(-5.9)*206.(111.)*7.82( -7) >>02-JAN-2006 1202 CW4870 *1012.(-0.7)* 59(-6.9)*53.5(-4.5)*236.( >>19)*4.34(-3.6) >>02-JAN-2006 Errs CW4870 * 0/87 * 15/87 * 0/87 * 1/87 * >>1/87 >>02-JAN-2006 Smry CW4870 *-0.3( >>0.5)*-3.7(2.79)*-1.9(2.76)*43.3(76.2)*-3.3(3.01) >> >>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://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C4870?date=20060103 >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>wxqc mailing list >>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >> >> > > > > > > From zmwp01 at valornet.com Fri Jan 6 10:57:13 2006 From: zmwp01 at valornet.com (zmwp01@valornet.com) Date: Fri Jan 6 10:57:18 2006 Subject: [wxqc] C4443 Dew Point errors In-Reply-To: <43905783.2090609@comcast.net> References: <62226.69.30.147.226.1133223395.squirrel@newwebmail.valornet.com> <438BA350.4030100@noaa.gov> <3841.156.110.160.73.1133299851.squirrel@newwebmail.valornet.com> <438CDAFE.7050502@wa4phy.net> <438D0AF6.7000001@comcast.net> <1365.156.110.160.73.1133355185.squirrel@newwebmail.valornet.com> <438E9264.1040802@comcast.net> <1775.156.110.160.73.1133529496.squirrel@newwebmail.valornet.com> <43905783.2090609@comcast.net> Message-ID: <3985.156.110.160.73.1136563033.squirrel@newwebmail.valornet.com> Good morning Dave, It seems another station(may be the same one as below) is causing a large shift in the analysis data for my station again. When comparing my DP to the two airports and others near me I am very close but the analysis data is showing 4-6 degF below all others. I would really like for this to be cleared up so the QC graphs have merit again. In the meantime I have been using two airports and five nearby stations for my reference. Thank you, Martin > Hummm... I had not seen that station before when I looked at your nearby > station. Lets see what can be done to get that bugger fixed or gone so > it isn't messing up the analysis. > > Dave > CW0351 > > From MADIS: TLSA2 (AWS) Holland Hall School Tulsa, OK > time slp t / td dir / spd / gst/pcp presWx & > skyCover > (UTC) (mb) (F) (mph) (in.) > 1329 1020.7(S) 29.0(S)/-33.3(S) 120?(C)/002(S)/---/0.00" > 1314 1021.0(V) 29.0(V)/-33.3(Q) 96?(V)/001(V)/---/0.00" > 1259 1020.7(V) 28.0(V)/-34.0(Q) 110?(V)/002(V)/---/0.00" > 1244 1020.7(V) 28.0(V)/-34.0(Q) 100?(V)/002(V)/---/0.00" > 1224 1020.7(V) 28.0(V)/-34.0(Q) 110?(V)/001(V)/---/0.00" > > zmwp01@valornet.com wrote: > >>Good morning Dave, >> >>There is a station TLSA2 (Holland Hall School Tulsa,OK) that has >>been steadily reporting a dew point value -40 to -50 degF below >>the neighboring stations. This station is only a few miles from mine >>and may the cause of the offset in my ANALYSIS data. >>I discovered that the ANALYSIS data from other stations not so close >>to TLSA2 fell right in line with my DP data. A comparison of the other >>five closest stations falls in line with my data also. >>Hope this is of some help to you. >> >>Best regards, >>Martin >> >> >> >>>Hi Martin, >>> >>>When in doubt, use the nearby ASOS stations as your source for truth as >>>personal weather station data my not be accurate. The +3F dew point >>>bias exists for your station because most of your closest 5 neighbors >>>have average dew points as least 3 F less than your average dew point >>>most of the time... at least that was the case in your station's >>>longer-term analysis statistics, but more recently your data is more in >>>line with the other stations. >>> >>>Much of the time, the QCMS analysis for individual CWOP stations is >>>comprised of mix of CWOP and non-CWOP stations. AWS/WxBug folks have >>>recently been allowing their data to be views on the MADIS Mesomap, but >>>that is not always the case. But even if AWS/WxBug observations are not >>>plotting on the MADIS Mesomap, they are likely used in the determination >>>of the station analysis (that is, if there are near-by AWS/WxBug >>>stations which is generally the case in the more populated areas). My >>>point is that it is not always obvious which stations are influencing >>>the your station's analysis. When we have questions about the analysis >>>input, we generally ask MikeB to that a look at what is going on. >>> >>>If you are still interested on the details of the MADIS QCMS analysis >>>technique, please check out this page especially the spatial >>>consistency/OI technique section: >>>http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/MSAS/qcms_descrip.html >>> >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Dave >>>CW0351 >>> >>> >>> >>>zmwp01@valornet.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Good morning Dave, >>>> >>>>I definitely appreciate your time to help me understand the >>>>interpretation >>>>of this collected weather data. This has turned out to be >>>>a fascinating venture for me. I would have never guess such a network >>>> was >>>>in place for coordinating and compiling so many weather stations. >>>>My hat is off to you, Russ, Philip, and all your team members. >>>>I guess what has me puzzled about the +3F error in my humidity is >>>>that most of the stations in Tulsa County must have the same error or >>>>greater since they usual have a similar reading or higher as >>>> illustrated >>>>in the link you referenced below. The same can be seen on most other >>>>days. >>>>I have also been using the NOAA Mesomap for my comparisons. >>>>I currently have two weather stations, a Davis VP2+ (6163), which is >>>>online with CWOP and a Davis VP2+ (6162) which is not online >>>>and being monitored locally. The second station has been moved to >>>>different locations on my property to see the effects on the data. >>>>So far both stations have been within +/- 1 of each other on most >>>>data points when place in the same location. >>>>Both stations are only a few months old. >>>>This brings to mind the interest in understanding how the ANALYSIS data >>>>is >>>>generated if it is the only true reference in this case. >>>>Your time and effort to help me understand how all this works is >>>>much appreciated. >>>> >>>>Thanks again, >>>>Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi Martin, >>>>> >>>>>In comparing to the near-by ASOS stations: >>>>>http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C4443?date=20051129&addnl=KRVS&addnl=KTUL&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl >>>>>... and the MADIS QCMS ANALYSIS, both show an approximate 3F "moist" >>>>>bias. While people have shown cases where the QCMS ANALYSIS has >>>>>problems, I believe in this case it is correct. Having a 3F moist >>>>> bias >>>>>(e.g. the RH and dew point typically are higher than "truth") is just >>>>>barely out of spec, so you are still providing reasonably good data >>>>>despite the less than perfect humidity observations. >>>>> >>>>>It is the nature of the thin film capacitor technology (which most >>>>>personal weather stations use to sense humidity) to "drift" out of >>>>>calibration. What type of weather station hardware do you operate? >>>>> >>>>>Here is a "classic" thread on diagnosing and resolving humidity >>>>>measurement issues which you may wish to peruse: >>>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/2005-July/subject.html >>>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/2005-July/000334.html >>>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/2005-July/000336.html >>>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/2005-July/000338.html >>>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/2005-July/000345.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>> >>>>>Dave >>>>>CW0351 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sam Drinkard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>zmwp01@valornet.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Here are a few links that reference my station CW4443(C4443) >>>>>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/cgi-bin/wxqchart.pl?site=C4443 >>>>>>>http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?CW4443 >>>>>>>http://www.met.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/meso_base.cgi?stn=C4443 >>>>>>>I should have been more specific, sorry. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>I looked at the graphs, and see first off there is a bad case of the >>>>>>"jaggies" in there. Comparing almost all the stations did not reveal >>>>>>anyone with really flakey looking lines, but then again, it's hard to >>>>>>see so many at one time and my eyes aren't that good :-( From what I >>>>>>saw of strictly your data, I don't see anything to indicate a big >>>>>>problem. I've certainly seen worse on DP from my own station too. I >>>>>>always seem to run a tad too warm on DP, and sometimes too cool with >>>>>>temps, but I refuse to try to "fix" the temp problem, as it's still >>>>>>within limits. I believe from looking at yours Martin, you are in >>>>>> the >>>>>>same category I am w/r/t the error(s). The graph for 11/11 does show >>>>>>the 5? plus diffs, but is that a spurious reading or anomoly or is >>>>>>that what it looks like more times than not? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>wxqc mailing list >>>>>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>>>> >>>>>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>wxqc mailing list >>>>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>>> >>>>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>wxqc mailing list >>>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >>> >>>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>wxqc mailing list >>wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc >> >>The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. > From mtnguyz at msn.com Sat Jan 7 10:00:16 2006 From: mtnguyz at msn.com (GEORGE TATE) Date: Sat Jan 7 10:00:21 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weatherlink Message-ID: I have an Oregon Scientific 918 and will be getting the Vantage Pro 2 but want to keep using the Weatherview software. I know you need the Weatherlink hardware but do you need to download and use the Weatherlink software to use the Weatherview software? George Tate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060107/718c4f9f/attachment.html From dshelms at comcast.net Sat Jan 7 10:15:00 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sat Jan 7 10:14:55 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weatherlink In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43BFDAF4.3050608@comcast.net> Hi George, You need the Davis WeatherLink hardware (they throw in the software for free) to move the data from the VP console to the PC, but once you have the hardware you can use several after markert data logging applications, including WeatherView32. Check out the CWOP Info page, "Weather Software Supporting CWOP" section to see all the hardware/software combinations that support CWOP and the VP2: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/cwop.html Dave CW0351 GEORGE TATE wrote: > I have an Oregon Scientific 918 and will be getting the Vantage Pro 2 > but want to keep using the Weatherview software. I know you need the > Weatherlink hardware but do you need to download and use the > Weatherlink software to use the Weatherview software? > > George Tate > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >