From bfgiii at adelphia.net Wed Mar 1 10:27:21 2006 From: bfgiii at adelphia.net (bfgiii@adelphia.net) Date: Wed Mar 1 10:27:30 2006 Subject: [wxqc] wxqc Help Message-ID: <24380736.1141226841873.JavaMail.root@web22> Hello Evan, Thanks for your consideration. I was lucky enough to have a new ASOS installed recently at a small airport only 3.2 miles from my station (K3B2). We're both on the close coastal plain here in S.E. Massachusetts half way between Boston and the Cape Cod Canal. Conditions can vary greatly between stations here depending on distance away from the shore alone. Nice to have a pro station near by in very similar terrain. The more verification tools, the better. K3B2 should provide NOAA with a lot of valuable data as its location is unique in its exposure to the fierce Nor'Easter's we're famous for. It was one of two stations in Massachusetts that recorded Blizzard level criteria for the February 11-12, 2006 storm. Now, if you could get it to stop sensing lightning in clear weather... Many Thanks Again, Ben Goodrich CW0467 ---- Evan Bookbinder wrote: ============= Ben, There's absolutely nothing wrong with your data. In fact, it's about the most dead on I've seen one of these graphs in a long time. Don't touch a thing. The QC report below is telling you the number of flagged observations out of the total number received for processing in the report. You're sitting at 99-100%. Looks great! Evan bfgiii@adelphia.net wrote: >Greetings! > >I received this data quality email report and linked graph for Feb 24th: > > > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) >24-FEB-2006 Errs CW0467 * 0/93 * 0/93 * 0/93 * 1/93 * 1/93 > >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C0467?date=20060225 > > >I have a hard time understanding these reports. The graph looked ok except for the problem Peet Bros gear seems to have reading the very low humidity usually associated with Arctic air invasions like the one we've been under. >Which error caused this email to be generated? Was it the higher than expected Dew Points/Humidity? Was it a wind speed problem? >Regarding the humidity problem, should I consider using the Weather-Display "slope" adjustment to compensate some? I know that offsets should be avoided. >Any thoughts would be appreciated. > >Ben Goodrich >CW0467 >Duxbury, MA >_______________________________________________ >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 EasyLyle at cfl.rr.com Wed Mar 1 13:09:55 2006 From: EasyLyle at cfl.rr.com (Lyle Schultz) Date: Wed Mar 1 13:09:51 2006 Subject: [wxqc] RE: wxqc Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <4oco0i$19v9o5v@hrndva-mx-04.mgw.rr.com> Message-ID: <004701c63d5b$58966f50$0a00a8c0@OFFICE2> Ben - what you are looking at is a "daily summary" or your reported readings via the internet compared to the "Statistical Model" Your summary: 24-FEB-2006 Errs CW0467 * 0/93 * 0/93 * 0/93 * 1/93 * 1/93 Each time your systems connects to the Internet and up loads your data is considered 1 report. Evidently your "Peet" system reports 93 times a day or 3.875 times per hour. This line tells you that you had zero errors over 93 reports for all but Degree Days and Temp where you had 1 error over 93 reports. As Evan said your right on the money! I suggest you monitor your QC reports, but leave your equipment as is for now. Don't get hung up and try to chase the "Statistical Model"! I live in the flat lands of Florida. I'm surrounded on by nearly 30 square miles of brackish marshes and the St. Johns water way. This mini climatology area can produce wide swings in my reports against the "Statistical Model". We feel that my equipment is correctly indicating the meteorological conditions at the time. The last adjustment I made to my system was nearly 2 years ago. Actually it was a series of very minor adjustments over several weeks, with the consultation of Dave Helms, an outstanding source of help and information. Your welcome to check my data, CW2689, and back up data. You will notice I almost daily have 1 or 2 errors on DD. I choose to ignore it. Hope this helps! Lyle R. CW2689 - KI4MYT - WQCM810 mailto:Lyle@LyleSchultz.com Lyle R. Schultz 513 Twin Lakes Drive Titusville, Florida 32780 H 321-264-2479 C 321-917-8724 F 321-383-9455 From gerry.creager at tamu.edu Wed Mar 1 23:21:19 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager) Date: Wed Mar 1 23:21:32 2006 Subject: [wxqc] wxqc Help In-Reply-To: <24380736.1141226841873.JavaMail.root@web22> References: <24380736.1141226841873.JavaMail.root@web22> Message-ID: <440672BF.8030506@tamu.edu> Ben, Specifically, you have one report where your anemometry (DD is wind direction) and FF (wind speed) didn't match the statistical model for QC. gerry bfgiii@adelphia.net wrote: > Hello Evan, > Thanks for your consideration. I was lucky enough to have a new ASOS installed recently at a small airport only 3.2 miles from my station (K3B2). We're both on the close coastal plain here in S.E. Massachusetts half way between Boston and the Cape Cod Canal. Conditions can vary greatly between stations here depending on distance away from the shore alone. Nice to have a pro station near by in very similar terrain. The more verification tools, the better. > K3B2 should provide NOAA with a lot of valuable data as its location is unique in its exposure to the fierce Nor'Easter's we're famous for. It was one of two stations in Massachusetts that recorded Blizzard level criteria for the February 11-12, 2006 storm. Now, > if you could get it to stop sensing lightning in clear weather... > Many Thanks Again, > Ben Goodrich > CW0467 > > ---- Evan Bookbinder wrote: > > ============= > Ben, > > There's absolutely nothing wrong with your data. In fact, it's about the > most dead on I've seen one of these graphs in a long time. Don't touch a > thing. The QC report below is telling you the number of flagged > observations out of the total number received for processing in the > report. You're sitting at 99-100%. Looks great! > > Evan > > bfgiii@adelphia.net wrote: > > >>Greetings! >> >>I received this data quality email report and linked graph for Feb 24th: >> >> >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) >>24-FEB-2006 Errs CW0467 * 0/93 * 0/93 * 0/93 * 1/93 * 1/93 >> >>http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/C0467?date=20060225 >> >> >>I have a hard time understanding these reports. The graph looked ok except for the problem Peet Bros gear seems to have reading the very low humidity usually associated with Arctic air invasions like the one we've been under. >>Which error caused this email to be generated? Was it the higher than expected Dew Points/Humidity? Was it a wind speed problem? >>Regarding the humidity problem, should I consider using the Weather-Display "slope" adjustment to compensate some? I know that offsets should be avoided. >>Any thoughts would be appreciated. >> >>Ben Goodrich >>CW0467 >>Duxbury, MA >>_______________________________________________ >>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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX 979.862.3983 MAIL: AATLT, 3139 TAMU Physical: 1700 Research Parkway, Suite 160, College Station, TX 77843-3139 From Weather at JaxWeather.net Sun Mar 5 09:49:00 2006 From: Weather at JaxWeather.net (Bob Johnson) Date: Sun Mar 5 09:49:14 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weird Summary contained in daily report Message-ID: I received the following last night and am at loss to understand... Weather data quality report for 2006-03-04 DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) 04-MAR-2006 Errs CW2703 * 3/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 04-MAR-2006 Smry CW2703 *25741.(43721.)*25742.(43721.)*25742.(43720.)*25720.(43734.)*25743.(43720.) Anyone help interpreting this one? -Bob -- JaxWeather.net Jacksonville, Fl (Lakeshore, 32205) Local Weather http://JaxWeather.net A WolfStalks Network Property http://WolfStalks.com From dshelms at comcast.net Sun Mar 5 10:18:38 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Sun Mar 5 10:18:35 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weird Summary contained in daily report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440B014E.8040800@comcast.net> Hi Bob, I believe MADIS QCMS had a bad night which contaminated its statistical database for stations (my summary looked like your's). Dave CW0351 Bob Johnson wrote: >I received the following last night and am at loss to understand... > >Weather data quality report for 2006-03-04 >DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) >04-MAR-2006 Errs CW2703 * 3/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 >04-MAR-2006 Smry CW2703 >*25741.(43721.)*25742.(43721.)*25742.(43720.)*25720.(43734.)*25743.(43720.) > >Anyone help interpreting this one? > >-Bob > >-- >JaxWeather.net >Jacksonville, Fl (Lakeshore, 32205) Local Weather >http://JaxWeather.net >A WolfStalks Network Property >http://WolfStalks.com >_______________________________________________ >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 Weather at JaxWeather.net Sun Mar 5 10:21:30 2006 From: Weather at JaxWeather.net (Bob Johnson) Date: Sun Mar 5 10:21:39 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weird Summary contained in daily report In-Reply-To: <440B014E.8040800@comcast.net> References: <440B014E.8040800@comcast.net> Message-ID: Thanks for the follow-up Dave, I was hoping it was something like that cause while my station is certainly not perfect it usualyl isn't that far off LOL Thanks, Bob On 3/5/06, Dave Helms wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I believe MADIS QCMS had a bad night which contaminated its statistical > database for stations (my summary looked like your's). > > Dave > CW0351 > > Bob Johnson wrote: > > >I received the following last night and am at loss to understand... > > > >Weather data quality report for 2006-03-04 > >DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > >04-MAR-2006 Errs CW2703 * 3/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 > >04-MAR-2006 Smry CW2703 > >*25741.(43721.)*25742.(43721.)*25742.(43720.)*25720.(43734.)*25743.(43720.) > > > >Anyone help interpreting this one? > > > >-Bob > > > >-- > >JaxWeather.net > >Jacksonville, Fl (Lakeshore, 32205) Local Weather > >http://JaxWeather.net > >A WolfStalks Network Property > >http://WolfStalks.com > >_______________________________________________ > >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. > -- JaxWeather.net Jacksonville, Fl (Lakeshore, 32205) Local Weather http://JaxWeather.net A WolfStalks Network Property http://WolfStalks.com From philip at gladstonefamily.net Sun Mar 5 10:50:23 2006 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sun Mar 5 10:50:34 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weird Summary contained in daily report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440B08BF.6020807@gladstonefamily.net> Bob This was my fault. I have been working on importing more data into my system over the last few days, and the bad summary was generated as a result of this. In particular, I now import worldwide METAR data and worldwide CWOP data, though for data outside the US, there is no analysis performed. The root cause of the problem was that when I imported the CWOP data, for those stations that reported more than once per 15 minutes, I saw different data records than the ones that MADIS say. This meant that when the emails were generated, the summary covered both MADIS records (which had good error fields) and direct CWOP records (which had 99999 as a marker for unknown error). This also explains why the number of samples for the day has gone up from 96 (4 times per hour) to 172 (in my case). Hopefully, tomorrow, things will be back to normal. Does anybody fancy trying to do worldwide QC? Philip Bob Johnson wrote: > I received the following last night and am at loss to understand... > > Weather data quality report for 2006-03-04 > DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD * FF > * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) * (KNT) > 04-MAR-2006 Errs CW2703 * 3/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 > 04-MAR-2006 Smry CW2703 > *25741.(43721.)*25742.(43721.)*25742.(43720.)*25720.(43734.)*25743.(43720.) > > Anyone help interpreting this one? > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060305/3de8ef68/smime.bin From gerry.creager at tamu.edu Sun Mar 5 11:17:26 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager N5JXS) Date: Sun Mar 5 11:17:40 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weird Summary contained in daily report In-Reply-To: <440B08BF.6020807@gladstonefamily.net> References: <440B08BF.6020807@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <440B0F16.4090102@tamu.edu> Two things. 1. I'm trying to stop travelling long enough to work with MADIS folk to get CWOP data to them every 5 minutes. Patty and I talked at the AMS meeting specifically about this. It may require importing all METAR and MADIS data and doing the CWOP QC MADIS is performing now, at TAMU. The decision resides with Patty and her folks, though. She was concerned about processing capacity. 2. Although the 168 hr per week problem is causing a few problems, I would be interested in working with you on worldwide QC analysis. gerry Philip Gladstone wrote: > Bob > > This was my fault. I have been working on importing more data into my > system over the last few days, and the bad summary was generated as a > result of this. > > In particular, I now import worldwide METAR data and worldwide CWOP > data, though for data outside the US, there is no analysis performed. > > The root cause of the problem was that when I imported the CWOP data, > for those stations that reported more than once per 15 minutes, I saw > different data records than the ones that MADIS say. This meant that > when the emails were generated, the summary covered both MADIS records > (which had good error fields) and direct CWOP records (which had 99999 > as a marker for unknown error). This also explains why the number of > samples for the day has gone up from 96 (4 times per hour) to 172 (in my > case). Hopefully, tomorrow, things will be back to normal. > > Does anybody fancy trying to do worldwide QC? > > Philip > > Bob Johnson wrote: > >> I received the following last night and am at loss to understand... >> >> Weather data quality report for 2006-03-04 >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD >> * FF >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) >> * (KNT) >> 04-MAR-2006 Errs CW2703 * 3/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 >> * 0/101 >> 04-MAR-2006 Smry CW2703 >> *25741.(43721.)*25742.(43721.)*25742.(43720.)*25720.(43734.)*25743.(43720.) >> >> >> Anyone help interpreting this one? >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 From Weather at JaxWeather.net Sun Mar 5 11:37:11 2006 From: Weather at JaxWeather.net (Bob Johnson) Date: Sun Mar 5 11:37:17 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weird Summary contained in daily report In-Reply-To: <440B0F16.4090102@tamu.edu> References: <440B08BF.6020807@gladstonefamily.net> <440B0F16.4090102@tamu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarification Philip and no problem, I just wanted to be sure I hadn't all of a sudden started reporting really, really, REALLY bad data LOL Good luck on the worldwide project, I am lucky enough to try and keep track of my backyard.. ;) -Bob On 3/5/06, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > Two things. > > 1. I'm trying to stop travelling long enough to work with MADIS folk to > get CWOP data to them every 5 minutes. Patty and I talked at the AMS > meeting specifically about this. It may require importing all METAR and > MADIS data and doing the CWOP QC MADIS is performing now, at TAMU. The > decision resides with Patty and her folks, though. She was concerned > about processing capacity. > > 2. Although the 168 hr per week problem is causing a few problems, I > would be interested in working with you on worldwide QC analysis. > > gerry > > Philip Gladstone wrote: > > Bob > > > > This was my fault. I have been working on importing more data into my > > system over the last few days, and the bad summary was generated as a > > result of this. > > > > In particular, I now import worldwide METAR data and worldwide CWOP > > data, though for data outside the US, there is no analysis performed. > > > > The root cause of the problem was that when I imported the CWOP data, > > for those stations that reported more than once per 15 minutes, I saw > > different data records than the ones that MADIS say. This meant that > > when the emails were generated, the summary covered both MADIS records > > (which had good error fields) and direct CWOP records (which had 99999 > > as a marker for unknown error). This also explains why the number of > > samples for the day has gone up from 96 (4 times per hour) to 172 (in my > > case). Hopefully, tomorrow, things will be back to normal. > > > > Does anybody fancy trying to do worldwide QC? > > > > Philip > > > > Bob Johnson wrote: > > > >> I received the following last night and am at loss to understand... > >> > >> Weather data quality report for 2006-03-04 > >> DATE UTC SITE * ALT * POT TEMP * DEW PNT * DD > >> * FF > >> * (MB) * (DEG F) * (DEG F) * (DEG) > >> * (KNT) > >> 04-MAR-2006 Errs CW2703 * 3/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 * 0/101 > >> * 0/101 > >> 04-MAR-2006 Smry CW2703 > >> *25741.(43721.)*25742.(43721.)*25742.(43720.)*25720.(43734.)*25743.(43720.) > >> > >> > >> Anyone help interpreting this one? > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > -- > Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu > Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University > Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 > Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- JaxWeather.net Jacksonville, Fl (Lakeshore, 32205) Local Weather http://JaxWeather.net A WolfStalks Network Property http://WolfStalks.com From sam at wa4phy.net Sun Mar 5 22:07:28 2006 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Sun Mar 5 22:07:36 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Reporting time Message-ID: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> Hello fellow wx enthusists, Got a question for you. I assume most of you, like myself, are sending data to the APRS network every 5 minutes or thereabouts. I'm curious if there are perhaps some of you that use some longer time period, say half-hour or hourly, like the some of the ASOS stations. If so, when you look at your graphs from Phillip's website, do your plots have a smoother line? I've been looking at today's plots for my station, and I had a real case of the jaggies today, especially on baro and temp. I can envision why to some degree, but the frequency of the changes looks like it changed every 5 minutes! Looking at the local ASOS stations here, I see their lines are relatively smooth, even if they show rather drastic deviations from the analysis. I know we've had past discussions about jaggies, and they are partly due to some stations reporting off/on and other reasons. Given the MADIS data is I believe, ingested every 15 minutes or so, I'm curious if changing the report period to hourly would help eliminate the jaggies. Phillip, Russ, Dave, or Bart, you can correct me on some of this.. going from memory... You can see my plots for today at: http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/AR471 Comments anyone? Sam From Art.Thomas at noaa.gov Mon Mar 6 07:34:21 2006 From: Art.Thomas at noaa.gov (Art Thomas) Date: Mon Mar 6 07:34:34 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Reporting time In-Reply-To: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> References: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> Message-ID: <440C2C4D.9040506@noaa.gov> Sam, I upload once an hour since I'm on a dial-up connection (out in the boonies with no broadband service). http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW2428&last=36&radar=*** art thomas Sam Drinkard wrote: > Hello fellow wx enthusists, > > Got a question for you. I assume most of you, like myself, are > sending data to the APRS network every 5 minutes or thereabouts. I'm > curious if there are perhaps some of you that use some longer time > period, say half-hour or hourly, like the some of the ASOS stations. > If so, when you look at your graphs from Phillip's website, do your > plots have a smoother line? I've been looking at today's plots for my > station, and I had a real case of the jaggies today, especially on > baro and temp. I can envision why to some degree, but the frequency > of the changes looks like it changed every 5 minutes! Looking at the > local ASOS stations here, I see their lines are relatively smooth, > even if they show rather drastic deviations from the analysis. I know > we've had past discussions about jaggies, and they are partly due to > some stations reporting off/on and other reasons. Given the MADIS data > is I believe, ingested every 15 minutes or so, I'm curious if changing > the report period to hourly would help eliminate the jaggies. > Phillip, Russ, Dave, or Bart, you can correct me on some of this.. > going from memory... > > You can see my plots for today at: > > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/AR471 > > Comments anyone? > > > Sam > _______________________________________________ > 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 philip at gladstonefamily.net Mon Mar 6 08:29:38 2006 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Mon Mar 6 08:29:45 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Reporting time In-Reply-To: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> References: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> Message-ID: <440C3942.4000707@gladstonefamily.net> Since the weekend, there are more points on the graph for your station's data. There can be up to 8 per hour rather than the four per hour that there used to be. This is a consequence of my importing of the CWOP data as well as the MADIS importing of the data. (Our schedules do not line up, and so we end up importing different data). The other effect is that the CWOP data only reports data to a certain level of precision. This is integer degrees farenheit for temperature. This means that the temperature can change very slightly, and the graph will wobble up and down by one degree. For the METAR stations, the situations is worse as they can only report in integer degrees centigrade! Philip Sam Drinkard wrote: > Hello fellow wx enthusists, > > Got a question for you. I assume most of you, like myself, are > sending data to the APRS network every 5 minutes or thereabouts. I'm > curious if there are perhaps some of you that use some longer time > period, say half-hour or hourly, like the some of the ASOS stations. If > so, when you look at your graphs from Phillip's website, do your plots > have a smoother line? I've been looking at today's plots for my > station, and I had a real case of the jaggies today, especially on baro > and temp. I can envision why to some degree, but the frequency of the > changes looks like it changed every 5 minutes! Looking at the local > ASOS stations here, I see their lines are relatively smooth, even if > they show rather drastic deviations from the analysis. I know we've had > past discussions about jaggies, and they are partly due to some stations > reporting off/on and other reasons. Given the MADIS data is I believe, > ingested every 15 minutes or so, I'm curious if changing the report > period to hourly would help eliminate the jaggies. Phillip, Russ, > Dave, or Bart, you can correct me on some of this.. going from memory... > > You can see my plots for today at: > > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/AR471 > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060306/e7195c4a/smime.bin From sam at wa4phy.net Mon Mar 6 11:01:29 2006 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Mon Mar 6 11:01:36 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Reporting time In-Reply-To: <440C2C4D.9040506@noaa.gov> References: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> <440C2C4D.9040506@noaa.gov> Message-ID: <440C5CD9.8030604@wa4phy.net> Hi Art, Well, its definately a lot smoother than mine. Of course, Phillip just sent an explaination that provides more info about the plots. Guess that change did make a difference. I may try the once per hour plot and see... Many thanks... Sam From sam at wa4phy.net Mon Mar 6 11:04:13 2006 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Mon Mar 6 11:04:17 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Reporting time In-Reply-To: <440C3942.4000707@gladstonefamily.net> References: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> <440C3942.4000707@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <440C5D7D.6050907@wa4phy.net> Thanks for the info Philip. Guess that does explain more of the jaggies than freqency of the reporting. Sam From CAL at sysmanint.com Mon Mar 6 12:44:26 2006 From: CAL at sysmanint.com (Carol A Locke) Date: Mon Mar 6 12:44:46 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Optimum reporting times for APRS Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/related-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Weather Conditions At CW4498.url Type: application/octet-stream Size: 217 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060306/67ff39e9/WeatherConditionsAtCW4498.obj From mark at markwyman.com Mon Mar 6 15:22:21 2006 From: mark at markwyman.com (Mark Wyman) Date: Mon Mar 6 15:20:21 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Optimum reporting times for APRS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005c01c6415b$ac80cf30$40280a0a@mvanattadt739> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2743 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060306/b255a314/attachment.jpe From jimwc at frontiernet.net Mon Mar 6 16:20:26 2006 From: jimwc at frontiernet.net (jim) Date: Mon Mar 6 16:20:30 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Emailed summary Message-ID: How do I get that Emailed summary. all I get now is the forum chat. The emailed summary looks like it is a little easer to understand than the graphs on the summary web page or at least a good tool to help understanding the webpage graphs. Jim CW4367 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060306/640b5a1d/attachment-0001.html From steve at steveswww.com Mon Mar 6 16:52:02 2006 From: steve at steveswww.com (saf) Date: Mon Mar 6 16:52:17 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Emailed summary References: Message-ID: Jim, You can sign up for the Quality reports from this page. http://www.wxqa.com/aprswxnetqc.html It is pretty cool. Steve Steve Fehlhaber - CW4759 244 East 400 North Monroe, UT. 84754 home 435-527-0956 cell 760-716-2658 steve@steveswww.com www.steveswww.com ----- Original Message ----- From: jim To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:20 PM Subject: [wxqc] Emailed summary How do I get that Emailed summary. all I get now is the forum chat. The emailed summary looks like it is a little easer to understand than the graphs on the summary web page or at least a good tool to help understanding the webpage graphs. Jim CW4367 _______________________________________________ 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/20060306/36062704/attachment.html From dshelms at comcast.net Mon Mar 6 20:24:59 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Mon Mar 6 20:25:06 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Optimum reporting times for APRS In-Reply-To: <005c01c6415b$ac80cf30$40280a0a@mvanattadt739> References: <005c01c6415b$ac80cf30$40280a0a@mvanattadt739> Message-ID: <440CE0EB.5@comcast.net> Hi Guys, Jaggies will always be part of the analysis as long as people/networks contribute at different intervals and have uncorrected/uncalibrated data, regardless of the interval you happen to upload to CWOP. I don't think jaggies are a "bad" thing since they alert us to the likelihood of uncalibrated station(s) in the neigbhorhood. Once we know this, we can try and resolve the problem. The strength of CWOP is its near real-time feed. We have suggested in the CWOP Guide that people with broadband Internet upload at 5 minute intervals as this period allows for detection flash flood rain events and for detection of "pulse" thunderstorms (indicated by a rapid pressure jump, strong winds, and heavy precip). 5 minute uploads also ensure the longest possible data latency is no more than 20 minutes (5 minutes between APRS/FINDU uploads and 15 minutes between FINDU/MADIS data exchanges). Going to 30 minute uploads increases the maximum latency to 45 minutes and 1 hour uploads pushes the maximum latency to 1:15 hour. For people with dial-up like my ol' buddy Art, we will always take half a loaf over none at all and gladly welcome those station's data who upload their data at hourly rates or less as many times their stations are in the boonies and therefore a valuable contribution to the network. Bottom line: As long as the APRS2 servers, FINDU, and your PC setup can take the load of 5 minute uploads, bring it on! On the other hand... 5 minute uploads is also the maximum frequency we request from members because data higher rates stress the servers and have lessor meteorological value (weather only changes so fast, so why measure sensor "noise"). Hope this helps, Dave CW0351 Mark Wyman wrote: > Hi Carol, > > I do 10 minute intervals since that is what peak gust reporting is on > I believe (I am a little vague in this point). In that fashion the > peak gusts are not missed between reporting intervals, but it isn?t so > much data that most of it is useless. 30 minutes is fine if you are on > dial-up because I am sure it is better than nothing. > > -Mark CW3833 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] *On Behalf Of *Carol A > Locke > *Sent:* Monday, March 06, 2006 12:44 PM > *To:* wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > *Subject:* [wxqc] Optimum reporting times for APRS > > **Regarding the reporting times for MADIS and the jaggies, I report on > the half hour. What is best?** > > **CWOP4498.** > > **Thank you for your forum.** > > **Carol** > > **Carol A Locke** > > **SYSTEMS/MANAGEMENT INTEGRATION, INC.** > > **P O Box**** 50677** > > **Colorado Springs****, CO 80949** > > **Tel: 719 599-9197** > > **Fax: 719 599-9198** > > **email: CAL@sysmanint.com** > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mon Mar 6 20:32:03 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Mon Mar 6 20:32:08 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Reporting time In-Reply-To: <440C5CD9.8030604@wa4phy.net> References: <440BA770.80700@wa4phy.net> <440C2C4D.9040506@noaa.gov> <440C5CD9.8030604@wa4phy.net> Message-ID: <440CE293.2080908@comcast.net> Hi Sam, If you uploaded one per day at the same time a day, you may see a rather well behaved time series. A smoother time series does not mean you are better characterizing the actual weather. I find that I can better diagnose radiation shield problems with high frequency time series, you really can detect the wheat from the chaff with high temporal observations. Dave CW0351 Sam Drinkard wrote: > Hi Art, > > Well, its definately a lot smoother than mine. Of course, Phillip > just sent an explaination that provides more info about the plots. > Guess that change did make a difference. I may try the once per hour > plot and see... > > Many thanks... > > Sam > _______________________________________________ > 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 sam at wa4phy.net Mon Mar 6 22:34:01 2006 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Mon Mar 6 22:34:10 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Optimum reporting times for APRS In-Reply-To: <440CE0EB.5@comcast.net> References: <005c01c6415b$ac80cf30$40280a0a@mvanattadt739> <440CE0EB.5@comcast.net> Message-ID: <440CFF29.80903@wa4phy.net> Hi Dave, I'm glad you commented on the intervals, as you brought up a point I had not considered, and that being the pop-up storms, or airmass type, as well as organized convective activity. On the other hand, as you state in the last paragraph, there probably is a good bit of "noise" in such frequent reports, but I'll assume somehow that noise gets filtered out. My thoughts of dumping data at hourly intervals is more or less moot. I'll stick with the 5 min schedule and just accept the jagged analysis and take it in stride :-) I guess what we don't know would stay that way unless we ask the questions... cheers Sam From dshelms at comcast.net Mon Mar 6 23:41:31 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Mon Mar 6 23:41:34 2006 Subject: [wxqc] FAA to End Human Augmentation of ASOS In-Reply-To: <000001c63a79$7d81cbf0$6601a8c0@jig2> References: <000001c63a79$7d81cbf0$6601a8c0@jig2> Message-ID: <440D0EFB.4010106@comcast.net> *FYI... OT / FAA to End Human Augmentation of ASOS I am just catching up on older emails and saw this post from Gilbert Sebenste on the WeatherTalk list server (one the oldest and best weather servers on the Internet) which I thought ya'll might be interested in. Human observers have been "babysitting" ASOS at the larger airports (A and B sites) since the late 1980s when ASOS was first deployed. I was once a contract observer at an ASOS site (KMSY) for the FAA and know several of these folks in the DC area; they are dedicated people who work 24*7 to ensure aviation safety. My sister is an FAA Tower controller (we actually worked at the same airport years ago), they are also dedicated to aviation safety but obviously will not be able deal with and correct the problems with the ASOS systems like the contract observers. The elements of the weather report that are of interest to meteorologists, vice Air Traffic Control, like hail size, cloud features, snow depth and snowfall will need to be collected 100% by volunteers and other ad hoc human observing networks like Skywarn. This is truely the end of an era for the human weather observer. Regards, Dave CW0351 ********************************************************************************************** Date:* Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:20:29 -0500 *Reply-To:* Gilbert Sebenste *Sender:* WX-TALK General weather discussions and talk *From:* Gilbert Sebenste *Subject:* The end of an era: Dedicated manned weather observations. *Comments:* To: Storm Chaser Email *Content-Type:* TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cross posted to wx-talk and wx-chase due to relevance on both lists, but for different and some equal reasons. I just got word last night that on October 1, 2006, the weather observers that also augment/quality check ASOS observations at major airport facilities (for those who understand: "A" and "B" level sites)...are gone. The FAA has decided that airport tower personnel will take over the observations on that date, in a cost-cutting move. Those who are dedicated weather observers at these airports are now venting on this message board: http://forums.ibexwx.com/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=883e43a95a97900bec58d3374c454d8d Look at the post labelled: "FAA looking to cut for the FY07 budget ...." And all the ones more current than that. This means that ASOS observation quality checking/augmenting will be controlled by people who have a more important responsibility...landing airplanes. And you better believe they won't have time to augment or fix a bad observation during bad weather! When sleet, hail, tornadoes, rapidly changing visibility or precipitation are occurring (along with snowfall accumulation and rate amounts, eg, "SNOINCR 3/12"), don't expect to see that consistently in the observations anymore, if at all. ASOS can't handle it, and the flight controllers probably won't have the time, unless the airport is closed, and even then...it will be very hit or miss depending on what is happening in the tower. A friend of mine who works part time as an observer at a major airport in Chicago was just officially told by his boss that he's done as of 10/1/06, along with all of his colleagues there. There goes flying safety, and our climate database....right out the window. YIKES... ******************************************************************************* Gilbert Sebenste ******** (My opinions only!) ****** Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University **** E-mail: sebenste@weather.admin.niu.edu *** web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu ** ******************************************************************************* From jimwc at frontiernet.net Tue Mar 7 09:09:48 2006 From: jimwc at frontiernet.net (jim) Date: Tue Mar 7 09:09:52 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Emailed summary In-Reply-To: <20060306215258.76385217B@mx04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net> Message-ID: I added my address to the list. Thanks Jim -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of saf Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:52 PM To: Discussion of weather data quality issues Subject: Re: [wxqc] Emailed summary Jim, You can sign up for the Quality reports from this page. http://www.wxqa.com/aprswxnetqc.html It is pretty cool. Steve Steve Fehlhaber - CW4759 244 East 400 North Monroe, UT. 84754 home 435-527-0956 cell 760-716-2658 steve@steveswww.com www.steveswww.com ----- Original Message ----- From: jim To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:20 PM Subject: [wxqc] Emailed summary How do I get that Emailed summary. all I get now is the forum chat. The emailed summary looks like it is a little easer to understand than the graphs on the summary web page or at least a good tool to help understanding the webpage graphs. Jim CW4367 _______________________________________________ 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/20060307/11308eec/attachment-0001.html From dshelms at comcast.net Tue Mar 7 21:34:08 2006 From: dshelms at comcast.net (Dave Helms) Date: Tue Mar 7 21:34:20 2006 Subject: [wxqc] High Frequency Updates verses Noise (or when the seagull, butterfly, and flea have their day) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440E42A0.5060105@comcast.net> Hey Sam, You got me thinking about the importance, or lack of importance, of high frequency observations. Chaos theory explains how it is possible for small differences in the initial conditions to cause large differences in future predictions. The atmospheric physicist Edward Lorenz discovered this by making what he thought were statistically insignificant approximations in his numerical weather models which he observed caused disproportionately large changes to the forecast output. Its true that most wiggles on your time series will never influence future weather events in any tangible way. However, there are several cases that show how gravity waves, detectable by small pressure changes, can travel hundreds of miles to trigger thunderstorm formation. More from Edward Lorenz and Johnathan Swift on the importance of small differences in initial conditions - In a paper in 1963 given to the New York Academy of Sciences, Lorenz remarked: / One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings would be enough to alter the course of the weather forever./ At the December 1972 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., the sea gull had evolved into the more poetic butterfly - the title of his talk was: /Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly?s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?/ In an 1733 quatrain by Jonathan Swift: "So, naturalists observe, a flea will bite its dog most readily. The dog, surprised, will bite its master, who changes course with actions rasher." One more plug for the magic of 5 minute updates... It is always better to have time synchronized data updates. ASOS is currently delivering only hourly updates, but there is interest from both the government and private sector in collecting ASOS data every minute (AWOS stations typically send updates every 20 minutes). However, every other major observing system in NOAA updates every 5 minutes including GOES Rapid Scan, NexRad storm mode, and the NOAA Profiler Network. Sorry about my fixation on this issue as I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, me thinks :), Dave CW0351 *********************************************************** More on butterflies, power outages, and ensemble model prediction: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi652.htm http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/15/MN191082.DTL http://www.windows.ucar.edu/physical_science/physics/thermal/Butterfly.html http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Lorenz.html http://www.kporterfield.com/writes/Creative_Writes_13.html http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Why_doesn't_the_exact_same_model_work_out_the_same%3F An Ensemble Forecasting Primer: http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0434(1997)012%3C0809:AEFP%3E2.0.CO%3B2 To describe the flow of information from small to large scales, the authors offer an inversion of the 1733 quatrain by Jonathan Swift that inspired Richardson2 : From sam at wa4phy.net Tue Mar 7 23:46:35 2006 From: sam at wa4phy.net (Sam Drinkard) Date: Tue Mar 7 23:46:46 2006 Subject: [wxqc] High Frequency Updates verses Noise (or when the seagull, butterfly, and flea have their day) In-Reply-To: <440E42A0.5060105@comcast.net> References: <440E42A0.5060105@comcast.net> Message-ID: <440E61AB.2010706@wa4phy.net> Hi Dave, Well, I don't think you are taking it too far. I've read the theory on the butterfly, and logicaly, it makes sense, altho in real practice, it's hard to imagine something as mundane as the flap of a butterfly wings actually causing anything such as a tornado or hurricane! Not sure I follow you on the connection of report data tho, but I guess the same thoughts would apply if the data were ingested into a model initialization. I was not aware the other services were reporting on 5 min intervals, and if a one minute interval is forthcoming, the only thing left would be real-time, or near real-time, sort of like wunderground is doing with their "rapid-fire" updates. I've seen what some of the gravity wave propagation will do to a model run, especially if it turns out to be more than a little wave. It can and does cause the model to go unstable, and crash or bomb out during that run. There are tweaks in WRF to help that kind of behavior, but sometimes it still happens. I'll check some of those links.. I believe I've visited a couple of them.. The ensemble forecasting looks familiar. Sam From gerry.creager at tamu.edu Wed Mar 8 00:19:19 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager) Date: Wed Mar 8 00:19:37 2006 Subject: [wxqc] High Frequency Updates verses Noise (or when the seagull, butterfly, and flea have their day) In-Reply-To: <440E42A0.5060105@comcast.net> References: <440E42A0.5060105@comcast.net> Message-ID: <440E6957.6040604@tamu.edu> Dave, I don't think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I personally think 5 minute (or maybe 6 minute) intervals are a good starting point. We've not established the Nyquist frequency of the atmosphere at the surface, so until we do, and start seriously oversampling, more is better. The only potential problem I could see would be if we chanced upon a harmonic component. Having done this in looking for optimal GPS geodetic observation durations, I can't tell you how hard it is to determine the nature of the problem until you get the correct index of suspicion. I think where we're going, though, is good. I'd love to see 1-min intervals but I agree that our processing capacity is likely to limit that utility. I'd forgotten the Swift quote: You are the literary dilitante! I don't think I'll forget Lorenz' papers on chaos and the implications for weather. Regards, Gerry Dave Helms wrote: > Hey Sam, > > You got me thinking about the importance, or lack of importance, of high > frequency observations. Chaos theory explains how it is possible for > small differences in the initial conditions to cause large differences > in future predictions. The atmospheric physicist Edward Lorenz > discovered this by making what he thought were statistically > insignificant approximations in his numerical weather models which he > observed caused disproportionately large changes to the forecast output. > > Its true that most wiggles on your time series will never influence > future weather events in any tangible way. However, there are several > cases that show how gravity waves, detectable by small pressure changes, > can travel hundreds of miles to trigger thunderstorm formation. > > More from Edward Lorenz and Johnathan Swift on the importance of small > differences in initial conditions - > > In a paper in 1963 given to the New York Academy of Sciences, Lorenz > remarked: / > One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of > a seagull's wings would be enough to alter the course of the weather > forever./ > > At the December 1972 meeting of the American Association for the > Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., the sea gull had evolved > into the more poetic butterfly - the title of his talk was: > /Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly?s Wings in Brazil set off > a Tornado in Texas?/ > > In an 1733 quatrain by Jonathan Swift: > "So, naturalists observe, a flea will bite its dog most readily. The > dog, surprised, will bite its master, who changes course with actions > rasher." > > One more plug for the magic of 5 minute updates... It is always better > to have time synchronized data updates. ASOS is currently delivering > only hourly updates, but there is interest from both the government and > private sector in collecting ASOS data every minute (AWOS stations > typically send updates every 20 minutes). However, every other major > observing system in NOAA updates every 5 minutes including GOES Rapid > Scan, NexRad storm mode, and the NOAA Profiler Network. > > > Sorry about my fixation on this issue as I'm making a mountain out of a > mole hill, me thinks :), > > Dave > CW0351 > > *********************************************************** > More on butterflies, power outages, and ensemble model prediction: > http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi652.htm > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/15/MN191082.DTL > http://www.windows.ucar.edu/physical_science/physics/thermal/Butterfly.html > http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Lorenz.html > http://www.kporterfield.com/writes/Creative_Writes_13.html > http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Why_doesn't_the_exact_same_model_work_out_the_same%3F > > > An Ensemble Forecasting Primer: > http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0434(1997)012%3C0809:AEFP%3E2.0.CO%3B2 > > To describe the flow of information from small to large scales, the > authors offer an inversion of the 1733 quatrain by Jonathan Swift that > inspired Richardson2 > > : > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX 979.862.3983 MAIL: AATLT, 3139 TAMU Physical: 1700 Research Parkway, Suite 160, College Station, TX 77843-3139 From greyhead at comcast.net Wed Mar 8 06:03:29 2006 From: greyhead at comcast.net (greyhead@comcast.net) Date: Wed Mar 8 09:42:17 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Request for historical weather info for specific locale Message-ID: <030820061103.18727.440EBA00000DD66A0000492722007507440B0E0A08970A9D09@comcast.net> Hello. I am new to this group, having found it through Weather Underground. I often use wunderground to find historical data to map seasonal averages for a very specific need: solo rowing along the US coast and Inside Passage of British Columbia. Because of topography, I've found that local knowledge and memory is of greater use to anticipate how weather systems behave in very specific locales than generalized forecasts and that is why I need your help. I have been asked by a fellow adventurer to use my weather savvy to help him break a world record. He has a compelling reason to attempt this, as it is a gesture in a race against time: His mother is dying of cancer and he is using this effort to raise funds for Whatcom Hospice, a care facility in Whatcom Co., Washington. To get background information about the record attempt, go to www.kayakforcare.com. Specifically, I need help in locating amateur meterologists that have collected data for the past five to ten years in the Lake Whatcom basin. The county meterologist only has historical data on temperature and precipitation for the basin, and I need data on wind direction and wind speed throughout each day for the month of April, ideally, for the past ten or more years. Can you direct me to a source/s that can give me that information. I'm looking for wind behavior data for the middle of April in the Lake Whatcom basin, Washington State. Sincerely, Dale McKinnon (http://www.fairhaven.com/events/dale2004/index.html) -- ________________________ How you do anything is how you do everything. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060308/9561f58c/attachment.html From gary.oldham at adelphia.net Wed Mar 8 09:49:44 2006 From: gary.oldham at adelphia.net (Gary Oldham) Date: Wed Mar 8 09:50:08 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Request for historical weather info for specific locale In-Reply-To: <030820061103.18727.440EBA00000DD66A0000492722007507440B0E0A08970A9D09@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20060308144949.WLOT21538.mta9.adelphia.net@Gary> I have three leads for you. While a quick search I did on each of them didn't turn up anything specifically remarking on Lake Whatcom, my geography knowledge of Washington State is limited at best. Knowing the area, you may be able to look at these lists and spot something relevant right away. These are three sources for people with personal weather stations in Washington, and you may be able to find what you need directly on line or contact a station owner by email. CWOP station listing, Washington State http://wxqa.com/states/WA.html Links to personal weather stations, sorted by state, at Weatherforum.net http://www.weatherforum.net/pwslinks.html#wa Weather Underground's listing of personal weather stations in Washington. http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/ListStations.asp?selectedState=WA &selectedCountry=United+States Gary CW0146 _____ From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of greyhead@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 6:03 AM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: [wxqc] Request for historical weather info for specific locale Hello. I am new to this group, having found it through Weather Underground. I often use wunderground to find historical data to map seasonal averages for a very specific need: solo rowing along the US coast and Inside Passage of British Columbia. Because of topography, I've found that local knowledge and memory is of greater use to anticipate how weather systems behave in very specific locales than generalized forecasts and that is why I need your help. I have been asked by a fellow adventurer to use my weather savvy to help him break a world record. He has a compelling reason to attempt this, as it is a gesture in a race against time: His mother is dying of cancer and he is using this effort to raise funds for Whatcom Hospice, a care facility in Whatcom Co., Washington. To get background information about the record attempt, go to www.kayakforcare.com. Specifically, I need help in locating amateur meterologists that have collected data for the past five to ten years in the Lake Whatcom basin. The county meterologist only has historical data on temperature and precipitation for the basin, and I need data on wind direction and wind speed throughout each day for the month of April, ideally, for the past ten or more years. Can you direct me to a source/s that can give me that information. I'm looking for wind behavior data for the middle of April in the Lake Whatcom basin, Washington State. Sincerely, Dale McKinnon (http://www.fairhaven.com/events/dale2004/index.html) -- ________________________ How you do anything is how you do everything. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060308/dc5dbb43/attachment-0001.html From greyhead at comcast.net Wed Mar 8 12:01:39 2006 From: greyhead at comcast.net (greyhead@comcast.net) Date: Thu Mar 9 10:03:27 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Request for historical weather info for specific locale Message-ID: <030820061701.14414.440F0DF30003A51E0000384E22069997350B0E0A08970A9D09@comcast.net> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Gary Oldham" Subject: RE: [wxqc] Request for historical weather info for specific locale Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:51:14 +0000 Size: 818 Url: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060308/12e75e7e/attachment.mht From ddmaier at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 19:47:59 2006 From: ddmaier at gmail.com (Dennis Maier) Date: Thu Mar 9 19:54:28 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Weather Underground - WeatherLink Expansion Module v.1.11 Message-ID: Weather Underground has posted an updated WeatherLink Expansion Module version 1.11. http://www.wunderground.com/windowsinstall/WuiWlink_1.dll http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WUndergroundModule-Readme.html Here's an excerpt from the readme... README Contents 03-09-2006 Weather Underground Expansion Module Version 1.11 for WeatherLink Changes since last revision: + fixed wind speed with WMII stations. + when uploading archived observations (older observations that had not be uploaded), only upload 10 at a time to decrease drain on computer resources. Changes through 1.10: + changed wind gust calculation period to 5 minutes. + fixed 255 mph wind speed / wind gust bug I have been taking with Shaun at WU about the bug I have with my wind speed / gust sometimes showing up as 255 MPH using the Expansion Modules v.1.9. Dennis CWOP: CW4869 WU: KMISANDP1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060309/aca8026f/attachment.html From jimwc at frontiernet.net Sat Mar 11 10:03:50 2006 From: jimwc at frontiernet.net (jim) Date: Sat Mar 11 10:04:03 2006 Subject: [wxqc] dew point observation at my station Message-ID: to any one At my station we seem to get wind most of the time any ware from 10 to 35 mph. from the North starting in October/November and from the South from March/April. I noticed that when the wind turned to from the south my Dew Point QA graph came into tolerance. My theory is, Davis Dam is 2.5 - 3 miles NW as the crow flies from my station. Davis Dam is the first Dam below Hover / Bolder Dam and forms Lake Mohave. My theory is, could I be picking up humidity from the lake when the wind is blowing from the north causing my Dew Point to be out of tolerance. Thanks Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060311/41ea153f/attachment.html From gerry.creager at tamu.edu Sat Mar 11 10:42:14 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager N5JXS) Date: Sat Mar 11 10:42:27 2006 Subject: [wxqc] dew point observation at my station In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4412EFD6.9060701@tamu.edu> Yet another example of a legitimate microclimate. gerry jim wrote: > to any one > > At my station we seem to get wind most of the time any ware from 10 to > 35 mph. from the North starting in October/November and from the South > from March/April. > I noticed that when the wind turned to from the south my Dew Point QA > graph came into tolerance. My theory is, Davis Dam is 2.5 - 3 miles NW > as the crow flies from my station. Davis Dam is the first Dam below > Hover / Bolder Dam and forms Lake Mohave. My theory is, could I be > picking up humidity from the lake when the wind is blowing from the > north causing my Dew Point to be out of tolerance. > > Thanks > Jim > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 From rmauser at gci.net Sat Mar 11 13:36:33 2006 From: rmauser at gci.net (rich mauser) Date: Sat Mar 11 13:36:55 2006 Subject: [wxqc] RE: Dew Point Observation at my station In-Reply-To: <0IVZ009W13GBFH60@msgmta-2.gci.net> Message-ID: <001301c6453a$b92b24f0$6601a8c0@jig2> It would be interesting to see if other stations left and right of the plume (the wind blowing across the water surface, hitting land and widening out) have been affected. Also, it would be interesting to talk to any interpretive naturalist about changes around the lakes since the building of the dams, in your case what changes have occurred due to the increase of humidity and how the climate has changed. All in all I agree with Gerry Creager, another example of a microclimate. Rich (CW4419) -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of wxqc-request@lists.gladstonefamily.net Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:05 AM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net Subject: wxqc Digest, Vol 17, Issue 10 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. dew point observation at my station (jim) 2. Re: dew point observation at my station (Gerry Creager N5JXS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:03:50 -0700 From: "jim" Subject: [wxqc] dew point observation at my station To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" to any one At my station we seem to get wind most of the time any ware from 10 to 35 mph. from the North starting in October/November and from the South from March/April. I noticed that when the wind turned to from the south my Dew Point QA graph came into tolerance. My theory is, Davis Dam is 2.5 - 3 miles NW as the crow flies from my station. Davis Dam is the first Dam below Hover / Bolder Dam and forms Lake Mohave. My theory is, could I be picking up humidity from the lake when the wind is blowing from the north causing my Dew Point to be out of tolerance. Thanks Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060311/41 ea153f/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:42:14 -0600 From: Gerry Creager N5JXS Subject: Re: [wxqc] dew point observation at my station To: Discussion of weather data quality issues Message-ID: <4412EFD6.9060701@tamu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Yet another example of a legitimate microclimate. gerry jim wrote: > to any one > > At my station we seem to get wind most of the time any ware from 10 to > 35 mph. from the North starting in October/November and from the South > from March/April. > I noticed that when the wind turned to from the south my Dew Point QA > graph came into tolerance. My theory is, Davis Dam is 2.5 - 3 miles NW > as the crow flies from my station. Davis Dam is the first Dam below > Hover / Bolder Dam and forms Lake Mohave. My theory is, could I be > picking up humidity from the lake when the wind is blowing from the > north causing my Dew Point to be out of tolerance. > > Thanks > Jim > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 17, Issue 10 ************************************ From jyurciw at adelphia.net Sat Mar 11 18:51:28 2006 From: jyurciw at adelphia.net (John Yurciw) Date: Sat Mar 11 18:51:34 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems Message-ID: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> When I get my daily "Weather data quality report", my Alt(mb) readings have consistantly been on the high side, about +2.00 to +2.78 and even +2.99. All my other reporting data is fine. My question is, do I need to check the elevation setting on my Davis Vantage Pro2? If I have this set incorrectly would this be the reason that I am getting the error readings from Weather Quality? I currently have it set at 171M Thanks in advance for the help John http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4264 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060311/b22f3b33/attachment.html From gerry.creager at tamu.edu Sun Mar 12 01:22:14 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager N5JXS) Date: Sun Mar 12 01:22:30 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> References: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> Message-ID: <4413BE16.7050008@tamu.edu> I'm actually much more fascinated by your excursions in temperature and dewpoint. You're showing some wide swings, despite Dave Helms' recent comments on frequent data insertion into the system. Regarding your barometric pressure: What's the siting conditions at your location? Where's your barometer sensor installed? Inside a tightly sealed house? Outside in the instrument? How'd you determine your elevation? GPS? If GPS, what datum was entered? How did you obtain a value (there are real issues with simple averaging although that beats a single spot value)? Topo map? What were the horizontal and vertical datums on the topo map? Using the CWOP info page for your station, does the location and height correspond appropriately? You mention you've got the station altitude set at 171 meters but the site info page says 161 meters. gerry John Yurciw wrote: > When I get my daily "Weather data quality report", my */Alt(mb) > /*readings have consistantly been on the high side, about +2.00 to +2.78 > and even +2.99. All my other reporting data is fine. My question is, do > I need to check the elevation setting on my Davis Vantage Pro2? If I > have this set incorrectly would this be the reason that I am getting the > error readings from Weather Quality? I currently have it set at 171M > > Thanks in advance for the help > John > http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4264 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 From jyurciw at adelphia.net Sun Mar 12 07:16:47 2006 From: jyurciw at adelphia.net (John Yurciw) Date: Sun Mar 12 07:16:52 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems References: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> <4413BE16.7050008@tamu.edu> Message-ID: <000901c645ce$d5e768d0$6401a8c0@compaq001> Gerry, Thanks for the info, to answer some of your questions..... What's the siting conditions at your location? The station is located in the middle part of my yard, on about an acre of ground around it and it's all grass. Where's your barometer sensor installed? At the weather station in the yard (It's a Davis Vantage Pro2 system) In the station Inside a tightly sealed house? Not sealed but protected Outside in the instrument? Yes. How'd you determine your elevation? Using TopoZone maps GPS? No, I do not have a GPS unit. What were the horizontal and vertical datums on the topo map? Not sure the answer for this one, I just used the elevation contours shown on the map Using the CWOP info page for your station, does the location and height correspond appropriately? You mention you've got the station altitude set at 171 meters but the site info page says 161 meters. I changed this recently, using the TopoZone map I deterimed that I think the elevation should be higher at 171 meters. Thanks, John CW4264 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Creager N5JXS" To: "Discussion of weather data quality issues" Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > I'm actually much more fascinated by your excursions in temperature and > dewpoint. You're showing some wide swings, despite Dave Helms' recent > comments on frequent data insertion into the system. > > Regarding your barometric pressure: What's the siting conditions at your > location? Where's your barometer sensor installed? Inside a tightly > sealed house? Outside in the instrument? How'd you determine your > elevation? GPS? If GPS, what datum was entered? How did you obtain a > value (there are real issues with simple averaging although that beats a > single spot value)? Topo map? What were the horizontal and vertical > datums on the topo map? Using the CWOP info page for your station, does > the location and height correspond appropriately? You mention you've got > the station altitude set at 171 meters but the site info page says 161 > meters. > > gerry > > John Yurciw wrote: >> When I get my daily "Weather data quality report", my */Alt(mb) >> /*readings have consistantly been on the high side, about +2.00 to +2.78 >> and even +2.99. All my other reporting data is fine. My question is, do I >> need to check the elevation setting on my Davis Vantage Pro2? If I have >> this set incorrectly would this be the reason that I am getting the error >> readings from Weather Quality? I currently have it set at 171M Thanks in >> advance for the help >> John >> http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4264 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > -- > Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu > Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: > 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 > Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 > _______________________________________________ > 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 gary.oldham at adelphia.net Sun Mar 12 09:05:31 2006 From: gary.oldham at adelphia.net (Gary Oldham) Date: Sun Mar 12 09:05:42 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <000901c645ce$d5e768d0$6401a8c0@compaq001> Message-ID: <20060312140537.QSPF23930.mta13.adelphia.net@Gary> John, if you're using a VantagePro, your barometer is inside your console, not in the Integrated Sensor Suite outside. Gary CW0146 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of John Yurciw Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:17 AM To: Discussion of weather data quality issues Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems Gerry, Thanks for the info, to answer some of your questions..... What's the siting conditions at your location? The station is located in the middle part of my yard, on about an acre of ground around it and it's all grass. Where's your barometer sensor installed? At the weather station in the yard (It's a Davis Vantage Pro2 system) In the station Inside a tightly sealed house? Not sealed but protected Outside in the instrument? Yes. How'd you determine your elevation? Using TopoZone maps GPS? No, I do not have a GPS unit. What were the horizontal and vertical datums on the topo map? Not sure the answer for this one, I just used the elevation contours shown on the map Using the CWOP info page for your station, does the location and height correspond appropriately? You mention you've got the station altitude set at 171 meters but the site info page says 161 meters. I changed this recently, using the TopoZone map I deterimed that I think the elevation should be higher at 171 meters. Thanks, John CW4264 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Creager N5JXS" To: "Discussion of weather data quality issues" Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > I'm actually much more fascinated by your excursions in temperature and > dewpoint. You're showing some wide swings, despite Dave Helms' recent > comments on frequent data insertion into the system. > > Regarding your barometric pressure: What's the siting conditions at your > location? Where's your barometer sensor installed? Inside a tightly > sealed house? Outside in the instrument? How'd you determine your > elevation? GPS? If GPS, what datum was entered? How did you obtain a > value (there are real issues with simple averaging although that beats a > single spot value)? Topo map? What were the horizontal and vertical > datums on the topo map? Using the CWOP info page for your station, does > the location and height correspond appropriately? You mention you've got > the station altitude set at 171 meters but the site info page says 161 > meters. > > gerry > > John Yurciw wrote: >> When I get my daily "Weather data quality report", my */Alt(mb) >> /*readings have consistantly been on the high side, about +2.00 to +2.78 >> and even +2.99. All my other reporting data is fine. My question is, do I >> need to check the elevation setting on my Davis Vantage Pro2? If I have >> this set incorrectly would this be the reason that I am getting the error >> readings from Weather Quality? I currently have it set at 171M Thanks in >> advance for the help >> John >> http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4264 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > -- > Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu > Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: > 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 > Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 > _______________________________________________ > 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 gerry.creager at tamu.edu Sun Mar 12 09:56:13 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager N5JXS) Date: Sun Mar 12 09:56:33 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <000901c645ce$d5e768d0$6401a8c0@compaq001> References: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> <4413BE16.7050008@tamu.edu> <000901c645ce$d5e768d0$6401a8c0@compaq001> Message-ID: <4414368D.9040505@tamu.edu> Howdy, John, John Yurciw wrote: > Gerry, > > Thanks for the info, to answer some of your questions..... > > What's the siting conditions at your location? The station is located > in the middle part of my yard, on about an acre of ground around it and > it's all grass. Good location! > Where's your barometer sensor installed? At the weather station in the > yard (It's a Davis Vantage Pro2 system) > In the station Inside a tightly sealed house? Not sealed but protected > Outside in the instrument? Yes. Shouldn't be a problem. What's the instrument age? Have you looked at calibration against an aneroid barometer? > How'd you determine your elevation? Using TopoZone maps > GPS? No, I do not have a GPS unit. > What were the horizontal and vertical datums on the topo map? Not sure > the answer for this one, I just used the elevation contours shown on the > map I'll look at the appropriate topozone maps, and if I've questions, I can ask their chief mapmaker. We work on a couple of projects together. I believe the vertical datum is NGVD29, which may have some differences with NAVD88. These could be at variance. > Using the CWOP info page for your station, does the location and height > correspond appropriately? > You mention you've got the station altitude set at 171 meters but the > site info page says 161 meters. I changed this recently, using the > TopoZone map I deterimed that I think the elevation should be higher at > 171 meters. OK. A 2-3 hPa difference suggests you're at a different height than reported, that you're not reporting altimeter pressure, or that you may have an instrument error, based on the answers so far. gerry > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Creager N5JXS" > > To: "Discussion of weather data quality issues" > > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 1:22 AM > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > > >> I'm actually much more fascinated by your excursions in temperature >> and dewpoint. You're showing some wide swings, despite Dave Helms' >> recent comments on frequent data insertion into the system. >> >> Regarding your barometric pressure: What's the siting conditions at >> your location? Where's your barometer sensor installed? Inside a >> tightly sealed house? Outside in the instrument? How'd you determine >> your elevation? GPS? If GPS, what datum was entered? How did you >> obtain a value (there are real issues with simple averaging although >> that beats a single spot value)? Topo map? What were the horizontal >> and vertical datums on the topo map? Using the CWOP info page for >> your station, does the location and height correspond appropriately? >> You mention you've got the station altitude set at 171 meters but the >> site info page says 161 meters. >> >> gerry >> >> John Yurciw wrote: >> >>> When I get my daily "Weather data quality report", my */Alt(mb) >>> /*readings have consistantly been on the high side, about +2.00 to >>> +2.78 and even +2.99. All my other reporting data is fine. My >>> question is, do I need to check the elevation setting on my Davis >>> Vantage Pro2? If I have this set incorrectly would this be the reason >>> that I am getting the error readings from Weather Quality? I >>> currently have it set at 171M Thanks in advance for the help >>> John >>> http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4264 >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> >> >> -- >> Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu >> Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 >> Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 >> Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 From joeh at ekn.net Sat Mar 11 01:11:36 2006 From: joeh at ekn.net (joeh) Date: Sun Mar 12 10:25:40 2006 Subject: [wxqc] temperture settings Message-ID: <44126A18.4040209@ekn.net> Temperature 24 hours Day time Night time Average temperature error -8.6 ?F -8.6 ?F -8.7 ?F Error standard deviation 1.6 ?F 1.3 ?F 1.8 ?F Worst average temperature error -9.5 ?F -9.5 ?F -9.7 ?F Worst standard deviation 1.7 ?F 1.0 ?F 2.0 ?F NOTE: If the error above is POSITIVE, then it means that the analysis temperature is HIGHER than the reported temperature. This means that your sensor is reading COLDER than expected. what do i need to do -------------- next part -------------- Skipped content of type multipart/related From philip at gladstonefamily.net Sun Mar 12 10:36:28 2006 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sun Mar 12 10:36:36 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <4414368D.9040505@tamu.edu> References: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> <4413BE16.7050008@tamu.edu> <000901c645ce$d5e768d0$6401a8c0@compaq001> <4414368D.9040505@tamu.edu> Message-ID: <44143FFC.40903@gladstonefamily.net> What is interesting about this case is that the surrounding stations (that I can see) seem to be a bit flaky. The closest station is an ASOS station and has a mean difference of over 4 mBar. The next closest station is a CWOP station that has an offset in the other direction. Then there are a bunch of CWOPs in a cluster. Hmm Philip -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060312/49a85156/smime.bin From jyurciw at adelphia.net Sun Mar 12 10:53:43 2006 From: jyurciw at adelphia.net (John Yurciw) Date: Sun Mar 12 10:53:49 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems References: <20060312140537.QSPF23930.mta13.adelphia.net@Gary> Message-ID: <002401c645ed$23d22c60$6401a8c0@compaq001> Gary, Thanks for the info on the location of the sensor, I was not aware that the sensor is in the console, I just assumed that all the sensors were located out in the ISS. Then that will make the sensor even higher since I have the console located on the second floor in my house, which would make it another 15-20 feet higher than the ISS sensors. Could that also make a difference? Thanks again for all the help from you guys. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Oldham" To: "'Discussion of weather data quality issues'" Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:05 AM Subject: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > John, if you're using a VantagePro, your barometer is inside your console, > not in the Integrated Sensor Suite outside. > > Gary > CW0146 > > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of John Yurciw > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:17 AM > To: Discussion of weather data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > > Gerry, > > Thanks for the info, to answer some of your questions..... > > What's the siting conditions at your location? The station is located in > the middle part of my yard, on about an acre of ground around it and it's > all grass. > Where's your barometer sensor installed? At the weather station in the > yard > (It's a Davis Vantage Pro2 system) In the station Inside a tightly sealed > house? Not sealed but protected Outside in the instrument? Yes. > How'd you determine your elevation? Using TopoZone maps GPS? No, I do > not > have a GPS unit. > What were the horizontal and vertical datums on the topo map? Not sure the > answer for this one, I just used the elevation contours shown on the map > Using the CWOP info page for your station, does the location and height > correspond appropriately? > You mention you've got the station altitude set at 171 meters but the site > info page says 161 meters. I changed this recently, using the TopoZone map > I > deterimed that I think the elevation should be higher at 171 meters. > > Thanks, > John > CW4264 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gerry Creager N5JXS" > To: "Discussion of weather data quality issues" > > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 1:22 AM > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > > >> I'm actually much more fascinated by your excursions in temperature and >> dewpoint. You're showing some wide swings, despite Dave Helms' recent >> comments on frequent data insertion into the system. >> >> Regarding your barometric pressure: What's the siting conditions at your >> location? Where's your barometer sensor installed? Inside a tightly >> sealed house? Outside in the instrument? How'd you determine your >> elevation? GPS? If GPS, what datum was entered? How did you obtain a >> value (there are real issues with simple averaging although that beats a >> single spot value)? Topo map? What were the horizontal and vertical >> datums on the topo map? Using the CWOP info page for your station, does >> the location and height correspond appropriately? You mention you've got >> the station altitude set at 171 meters but the site info page says 161 >> meters. >> >> gerry >> >> John Yurciw wrote: >>> When I get my daily "Weather data quality report", my */Alt(mb) >>> /*readings have consistantly been on the high side, about +2.00 to +2.78 >>> and even +2.99. All my other reporting data is fine. My question is, do >>> I > >>> need to check the elevation setting on my Davis Vantage Pro2? If I have >>> this set incorrectly would this be the reason that I am getting the >>> error > >>> readings from Weather Quality? I currently have it set at 171M Thanks in >>> advance for the help >>> John >>> http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4264 >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> >> -- >> Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu >> Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: >> 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 >> Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 kdmiller at oldsgmail.com Sun Mar 12 11:45:08 2006 From: kdmiller at oldsgmail.com (Keith Miller) Date: Sun Mar 12 11:45:54 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <002401c645ed$23d22c60$6401a8c0@compaq001> Message-ID: <737E49378F2A44728A8D5C94BFCEE2C5@sauron> > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of > John Yurciw > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:54 AM > To: Discussion of weather data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > > > Gary, > > Thanks for the info on the location of the sensor, I was > not aware that the sensor is in the console, I just > assumed that all the sensors were located out in the ISS. > Then that will make the sensor even higher since I have > the console located on the second floor in my house, which > would make it another 15-20 feet higher than the ISS > sensors. Could that also make a difference? > As a rough rule, 100' of elevation will be about a .1" Hg (3 mb) difference. There's other factors, but those are easy numbers to remember that'll get you close. Keith -- CW5250 From gerry.creager at tamu.edu Sun Mar 12 17:25:20 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager N5JXS) Date: Sun Mar 12 17:25:43 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <44143FFC.40903@gladstonefamily.net> References: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> <4413BE16.7050008@tamu.edu> <000901c645ce$d5e768d0$6401a8c0@compaq001> <4414368D.9040505@tamu.edu> <44143FFC.40903@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <44149FD0.1060506@tamu.edu> I'd seen the ASOS station. Hadn't spent any time looking at the cluster of CWOPs, although I should have. gerry Philip Gladstone wrote: > What is interesting about this case is that the surrounding stations > (that I can see) seem to be a bit flaky. The closest station is an ASOS > station and has a mean difference of over 4 mBar. The next closest > station is a CWOP station that has an offset in the other direction. > Then there are a bunch of CWOPs in a cluster. > > Hmm > > Philip > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > wxqc mailing list > wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net > http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/mailman/listinfo/wxqc > > The contents of this message are the responsibility of the author. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 From LMcDonald at MCSolutions.com Sun Mar 12 18:42:45 2006 From: LMcDonald at MCSolutions.com (Lark McDonald) Date: Sun Mar 12 18:43:02 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <737E49378F2A44728A8D5C94BFCEE2C5@sauron> Message-ID: <000001c6462e$ad2b64e0$8f6fa8c0@office.mcsolutions.com> Although I really am not worried about this, I have an academic question I would like to ask just to better my understanding of the elevation and barometric pressure reporting. I have a new station CW5332 which is using a Davis VP2 which receives its data via a wireless signal. According to the topo map my station should be at an elevation of 6578' (as verified on the CWOP site). The lat/long of the site on CWOP is correct. http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C5332?tile=10;temperature_date=2006- 02-09;days=3#Data According to a detailed elevation survey (1 ft contours) conducted by a survey company last year, the elevation at the site is actually 6554'. I reported 6559' as an initial elevation, because the sensor suite was located on a 5ft pole. I am making the assumption that this elevation is more correct than the topo map made about 20 years ago. Today I learned courtesy of Gary Oldham (thanks Gary) that the barometric pressure in my system is captured by the console, not the sensor suite. I use an Envoy receiver, but assume that this is the case as well. The Envoy receiver which reports the data is located 470' away from the sensor suite, at an elevation of 6570' according to the survey (adjusted for actual height above ground in the office). According to the topo map, the receiver would sit at an elevation of about 6595' (again when adjusted for actual height above ground). Admittedly the numbers are not far apart in my case, but they could have been had I located the station in a slightly different spot where the ground was steeper, or had the distance between the units had been greater, and that got me thinking.So given this mini case study, I was hoping that someone could help me understand what things determine the "correct" elevation, and why. Two questions: 1) Actual accuracy vs. relative accuracy? Since most of the surrounding stations are probably giving elevation based on the same map, should I be using the topo map as a base, or is actual elevation more appropriate for the reporting of data? What should be my reported elevation be in my case? 2) Is elevation used for calculating anything else beyond barometric pressure, and if so, is the station or the receiver elevation more appropriate considering the big picture? An expiring mind wants to know. Thanks for indulging me. Lark McDonald CW5332 -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Keith Miller Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:45 AM To: 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' Subject: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of John > Yurciw > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:54 AM > To: Discussion of weather data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > > > Gary, > > Thanks for the info on the location of the sensor, I was not aware > that the sensor is in the console, I just assumed that all the sensors > were located out in the ISS. > Then that will make the sensor even higher since I have the console > located on the second floor in my house, which would make it another > 15-20 feet higher than the ISS sensors. Could that also make a > difference? > As a rough rule, 100' of elevation will be about a .1" Hg (3 mb) difference. There's other factors, but those are easy numbers to remember that'll get you close. Keith -- CW5250 _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Mar 12 19:21:07 2006 From: cs at digilib.com (Claude Schoch) Date: Sun Mar 12 19:21:13 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems References: <000001c6462e$ad2b64e0$8f6fa8c0@office.mcsolutions.com> Message-ID: <000a01c64634$06a9c1b0$6400a8c0@ClaudeLaptop> Lark: USGS topo maps are not going to be 25 feet off. Your new survey may have 1 foot contour lines, but unless it was accurately tied back to the nearest USGS bench mark, it is not going to show accurate elevations relative to sea level. Your USGS topo map will show bench marks as "BM" followed by an elevation. Look around your topo map and you'll see them. At the actual bench mark site, will be a concrete monument with a 2 inch brass disc with the station name. These bench marks were extremely accurately set by the USGS many years ago. Everyone of them is part of the US geodetic survey, and each one links all the way back to the nearest ocean coast to establish the elevation above sea level. The modern topo maps were made by taking high altitude stereo photos of a region. The photos were calibrated to the bench marks, and using stereo viewers, the contour lines were then drawn. I really doubt the surveyors that did the new survey bothered to run the survey several miles back to the nearest bench mark. The footnotes on the new survey should either show the USGS benchmark used, or they didn't use one. Often these new topo's just pick an elevation out of a hat that's close and use it since the expense of running a traverse all the way to the nearest benchmark isn't worth it. If the new topo was also done using stereo aerial photos (most are these days), then the photo used needed to be large enough to cover at least three benchmarks in order to get the photo calibrated and "flat" in order to draw the contours. I would check your new survey carefully before deciding to use it to overrule a USGS topo. Claude, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lark McDonald" To: "'Discussion of weather data quality issues'" Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:42 PM Subject: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > Although I really am not worried about this, I have an academic question I > would like to ask just to better my understanding of the elevation and > barometric pressure reporting. > > I have a new station CW5332 which is using a Davis VP2 which receives its > data via a wireless signal. > > According to the topo map my station should be at an elevation of 6578' > (as > verified on the CWOP site). The lat/long of the site on CWOP is correct. > > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C5332?tile=10;temperature_date=2006- > 02-09;days=3#Data > > According to a detailed elevation survey (1 ft contours) conducted by a > survey company last year, the elevation at the site is actually 6554'. I > reported 6559' as an initial elevation, because the sensor suite was > located > on a 5ft pole. I am making the assumption that this elevation is more > correct than the topo map made about 20 years ago. > > Today I learned courtesy of Gary Oldham (thanks Gary) that the barometric > pressure in my system is captured by the console, not the sensor suite. I > use an Envoy receiver, but assume that this is the case as well. The Envoy > receiver which reports the data is located 470' away from the sensor > suite, > at an elevation of 6570' according to the survey (adjusted for actual > height > above ground in the office). According to the topo map, the receiver > would > sit at an elevation of about 6595' (again when adjusted for actual height > above ground). > > Admittedly the numbers are not far apart in my case, but they could have > been had I located the station in a slightly different spot where the > ground > was steeper, or had the distance between the units had been greater, and > that got me thinking.So given this mini case study, I was hoping that > someone could help me understand what things determine the "correct" > elevation, and why. > > Two questions: > > 1) Actual accuracy vs. relative accuracy? Since most of the surrounding > stations are probably giving elevation based on the same map, should I be > using the topo map as a base, or is actual elevation more appropriate for > the reporting of data? What should be my reported elevation be in my > case? > > 2) Is elevation used for calculating anything else beyond barometric > pressure, and if so, is the station or the receiver elevation more > appropriate considering the big picture? > > An expiring mind wants to know. Thanks for indulging me. > > Lark McDonald > CW5332 > > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Keith Miller > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:45 AM > To: 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' > Subject: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >> [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of John >> Yurciw >> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:54 AM >> To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >> Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems >> >> >> Gary, >> >> Thanks for the info on the location of the sensor, I was not aware >> that the sensor is in the console, I just assumed that all the sensors >> were located out in the ISS. >> Then that will make the sensor even higher since I have the console >> located on the second floor in my house, which would make it another >> 15-20 feet higher than the ISS sensors. Could that also make a >> difference? >> > > As a rough rule, 100' of elevation will be about a .1" Hg > (3 mb) difference. There's other factors, but those are easy numbers to > remember that'll get you close. > > > Keith > -- > CW5250 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 spamfree at pensom.org Sun Mar 12 19:25:21 2006 From: spamfree at pensom.org (spamfree@pensom.org) Date: Sun Mar 12 19:23:46 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems Message-ID: <20060312035844.B19FF48817@mail.pensom.org> Hi, Based on calculations I did a while back while writing some code to do barometer conversions for Vantage Pro stations, I looked at the issue of station pressure vs. sensor pressure and the effect of a difference in elevation between the official station elevation and the elevation of the physical barometer sensor. To make a long story short, unless the difference is greater than something like 50 or 100 feet, the difference is not consequential. You can account for the elevation difference by calibrating your barometer to a nearby reliable weather station. Since the barometer values sent to CWOP are already adjusted for elevation, I don't think it's important if your physical barometer is 10 or 20 feet above or below your reported station elevation. Best regards, Steve ======= At 2006-03-12, 16:42:45 you wrote: ======= >Although I really am not worried about this, I have an academic question I >would like to ask just to better my understanding of the elevation and >barometric pressure reporting. > >I have a new station CW5332 which is using a Davis VP2 which receives its >data via a wireless signal. > >According to the topo map my station should be at an elevation of 6578' (as >verified on the CWOP site). The lat/long of the site on CWOP is correct. > >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C5332?tile=10;temperature_date=2006- >02-09;days=3#Data > >According to a detailed elevation survey (1 ft contours) conducted by a >survey company last year, the elevation at the site is actually 6554'. I >reported 6559' as an initial elevation, because the sensor suite was located >on a 5ft pole. I am making the assumption that this elevation is more >correct than the topo map made about 20 years ago. > >Today I learned courtesy of Gary Oldham (thanks Gary) that the barometric >pressure in my system is captured by the console, not the sensor suite. I >use an Envoy receiver, but assume that this is the case as well. The Envoy >receiver which reports the data is located 470' away from the sensor suite, >at an elevation of 6570' according to the survey (adjusted for actual height >above ground in the office). According to the topo map, the receiver would >sit at an elevation of about 6595' (again when adjusted for actual height >above ground). > >Admittedly the numbers are not far apart in my case, but they could have >been had I located the station in a slightly different spot where the ground >was steeper, or had the distance between the units had been greater, and >that got me thinking.So given this mini case study, I was hoping that >someone could help me understand what things determine the "correct" >elevation, and why. > >Two questions: > >1) Actual accuracy vs. relative accuracy? Since most of the surrounding >stations are probably giving elevation based on the same map, should I be >using the topo map as a base, or is actual elevation more appropriate for >the reporting of data? What should be my reported elevation be in my case? > >2) Is elevation used for calculating anything else beyond barometric >pressure, and if so, is the station or the receiver elevation more >appropriate considering the big picture? > >An expiring mind wants to know. Thanks for indulging me. > >Lark McDonald >CW5332 > >-----Original Message----- >From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Keith Miller >Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:45 AM >To: 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' >Subject: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >> [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of John >> Yurciw >> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:54 AM >> To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >> Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems >> >> >> Gary, >> >> Thanks for the info on the location of the sensor, I was not aware >> that the sensor is in the console, I just assumed that all the sensors >> were located out in the ISS. >> Then that will make the sensor even higher since I have the console >> located on the second floor in my house, which would make it another >> 15-20 feet higher than the ISS sensors. Could that also make a >> difference? >> > >As a rough rule, 100' of elevation will be about a .1" Hg >(3 mb) difference. There's other factors, but those are easy numbers to >remember that'll get you close. > > >Keith >-- >CW5250 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 LMcDonald at MCSolutions.com Sun Mar 12 20:24:19 2006 From: LMcDonald at MCSolutions.com (Lark McDonald) Date: Sun Mar 12 20:24:36 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <20060312035844.B19FF48817@mail.pensom.org> Message-ID: <000d01c6463c$ddc783a0$8f6fa8c0@office.mcsolutions.com> Thanks Claude & Steve - Between the two of you I think you answered my questions. Claude - The survey was conducted to support a construction project and was fairly involved, but it is possible that the BM reference is weak - I will check on that aspect, as it would be good to know that our topo maps aren't that far off. Steve - thanks for answering the part of the question having to do with the situation where station sensor components are separated by some distance. I doubted that it would matter much, but I appreciate the explanation of how much difference might matter. Thanks, Lark -----Original Message----- From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of spamfree@pensom.org Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 5:25 PM To: wxqc@lists.gladstonefamily.net> Subject: Re: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems Hi, Based on calculations I did a while back while writing some code to do barometer conversions for Vantage Pro stations, I looked at the issue of station pressure vs. sensor pressure and the effect of a difference in elevation between the official station elevation and the elevation of the physical barometer sensor. To make a long story short, unless the difference is greater than something like 50 or 100 feet, the difference is not consequential. You can account for the elevation difference by calibrating your barometer to a nearby reliable weather station. Since the barometer values sent to CWOP are already adjusted for elevation, I don't think it's important if your physical barometer is 10 or 20 feet above or below your reported station elevation. Best regards, Steve ======= At 2006-03-12, 16:42:45 you wrote: ======= >Although I really am not worried about this, I have an academic >question I would like to ask just to better my understanding of the >elevation and barometric pressure reporting. > >I have a new station CW5332 which is using a Davis VP2 which receives >its data via a wireless signal. > >According to the topo map my station should be at an elevation of 6578' >(as verified on the CWOP site). The lat/long of the site on CWOP is correct. > >http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C5332?tile=10;temperature_date= >2006- >02-09;days=3#Data > >According to a detailed elevation survey (1 ft contours) conducted by a >survey company last year, the elevation at the site is actually 6554'. >I reported 6559' as an initial elevation, because the sensor suite was >located on a 5ft pole. I am making the assumption that this elevation >is more correct than the topo map made about 20 years ago. > >Today I learned courtesy of Gary Oldham (thanks Gary) that the >barometric pressure in my system is captured by the console, not the >sensor suite. I use an Envoy receiver, but assume that this is the >case as well. The Envoy receiver which reports the data is located 470' >away from the sensor suite, at an elevation of 6570' according to the >survey (adjusted for actual height above ground in the office). >According to the topo map, the receiver would sit at an elevation of >about 6595' (again when adjusted for actual height above ground). > >Admittedly the numbers are not far apart in my case, but they could >have been had I located the station in a slightly different spot where >the ground was steeper, or had the distance between the units had been >greater, and that got me thinking.So given this mini case study, I was >hoping that someone could help me understand what things determine the "correct" >elevation, and why. > >Two questions: > >1) Actual accuracy vs. relative accuracy? Since most of the >surrounding stations are probably giving elevation based on the same >map, should I be using the topo map as a base, or is actual elevation >more appropriate for the reporting of data? What should be my reported elevation be in my case? > >2) Is elevation used for calculating anything else beyond barometric >pressure, and if so, is the station or the receiver elevation more >appropriate considering the big picture? > >An expiring mind wants to know. Thanks for indulging me. > >Lark McDonald >CW5332 > >-----Original Message----- >From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Keith >Miller >Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:45 AM >To: 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' >Subject: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >> [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of John >> Yurciw >> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:54 AM >> To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >> Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems >> >> >> Gary, >> >> Thanks for the info on the location of the sensor, I was not aware >> that the sensor is in the console, I just assumed that all the >> sensors were located out in the ISS. >> Then that will make the sensor even higher since I have the console >> located on the second floor in my house, which would make it another >> 15-20 feet higher than the ISS sensors. Could that also make a >> difference? >> > >As a rough rule, 100' of elevation will be about a .1" Hg >(3 mb) difference. There's other factors, but those are easy numbers to >remember that'll get you close. > > >Keith >-- >CW5250 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 philip at gladstonefamily.net Sun Mar 12 21:50:29 2006 From: philip at gladstonefamily.net (Philip Gladstone) Date: Sun Mar 12 21:50:33 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <20060312035844.B19FF48817@mail.pensom.org> References: <20060312035844.B19FF48817@mail.pensom.org> Message-ID: <4414DDF5.7090305@gladstonefamily.net> There is another factor in barometer adjustment. Some stations just add/subtract an offset to make the value come out right (but also have the elevation set wrong). This means that when the pressure changes, the reported pressure does not track correctly. I suspect that there is a fair amount of this going on, but it is quite difficult to detect with any reliability. I have an experimental paramter that you can add to the site information page '?fit=1' that tries to calculate the best fit function to map the observations into the analysis value. If the multiplier is distinctly not =1, then this may be happening. Philip spamfree@pensom.org wrote: > Hi, > > Based on calculations I did a while back while writing some code to do barometer conversions for Vantage Pro stations, I looked at the issue of station pressure vs. sensor pressure and the effect of a difference in elevation between the official station elevation and the elevation of the physical barometer sensor. > > To make a long story short, unless the difference is greater than something like 50 or 100 feet, the difference is not consequential. You can account for the elevation difference by calibrating your barometer to a nearby reliable weather station. > > Since the barometer values sent to CWOP are already adjusted for elevation, I don't think it's important if your physical barometer is 10 or 20 feet above or below your reported station elevation. > > Best regards, > Steve > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3322 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://pond1.gladstonefamily.net:8080/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20060312/f8e04db5/smime.bin From gerry.creager at tamu.edu Mon Mar 13 00:04:01 2006 From: gerry.creager at tamu.edu (Gerry Creager N5JXS) Date: Mon Mar 13 00:04:18 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <000001c6462e$ad2b64e0$8f6fa8c0@office.mcsolutions.com> References: <000001c6462e$ad2b64e0$8f6fa8c0@office.mcsolutions.com> Message-ID: <4414FD41.3020409@tamu.edu> I can launch into the long explanation of determination and reference of vertical, but there are a couple of points. 1. What's the most accurate (not necessarily the most precise) survey data available to you? You should use that. 2. Which one is referenced to NAVD 1988 for the vertical datum? That should have better data than an NGVD 1929 survey. It's possible to transform an NAVD88 height above ellipsoid (plus geoid separation) to an MSL altitude. If anyone's interested in the various issues associated with NGVD 29 and NAVD 88, I can give that lecture and talk about selection of geoids and ellipsoids. Altitude is used to calculate "altimeter pressure" which is the station pressure corrected to show the sea level pressure when an aircraft altimeter is adjusted to the known station height. It does not account for the effect of temperature in the correction of station pressure to sea level pressure. To the best of my knowledge Dave, Philip, Russ, et al, do not use station altitude to calculate other parameters. gerry Lark McDonald wrote: > Although I really am not worried about this, I have an academic question I > would like to ask just to better my understanding of the elevation and > barometric pressure reporting. > > I have a new station CW5332 which is using a Davis VP2 which receives its > data via a wireless signal. > > According to the topo map my station should be at an elevation of 6578' (as > verified on the CWOP site). The lat/long of the site on CWOP is correct. > > http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C5332?tile=10;temperature_date=2006- > 02-09;days=3#Data > > According to a detailed elevation survey (1 ft contours) conducted by a > survey company last year, the elevation at the site is actually 6554'. I > reported 6559' as an initial elevation, because the sensor suite was located > on a 5ft pole. I am making the assumption that this elevation is more > correct than the topo map made about 20 years ago. > > Today I learned courtesy of Gary Oldham (thanks Gary) that the barometric > pressure in my system is captured by the console, not the sensor suite. I > use an Envoy receiver, but assume that this is the case as well. The Envoy > receiver which reports the data is located 470' away from the sensor suite, > at an elevation of 6570' according to the survey (adjusted for actual height > above ground in the office). According to the topo map, the receiver would > sit at an elevation of about 6595' (again when adjusted for actual height > above ground). > > Admittedly the numbers are not far apart in my case, but they could have > been had I located the station in a slightly different spot where the ground > was steeper, or had the distance between the units had been greater, and > that got me thinking.So given this mini case study, I was hoping that > someone could help me understand what things determine the "correct" > elevation, and why. > > Two questions: > > 1) Actual accuracy vs. relative accuracy? Since most of the surrounding > stations are probably giving elevation based on the same map, should I be > using the topo map as a base, or is actual elevation more appropriate for > the reporting of data? What should be my reported elevation be in my case? > > 2) Is elevation used for calculating anything else beyond barometric > pressure, and if so, is the station or the receiver elevation more > appropriate considering the big picture? > > An expiring mind wants to know. Thanks for indulging me. > > Lark McDonald > CW5332 > > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net] On Behalf Of Keith Miller > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:45 AM > To: 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' > Subject: RE: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net >>[mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of John >>Yurciw >>Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:54 AM >>To: Discussion of weather data quality issues >>Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems >> >> >>Gary, >> >>Thanks for the info on the location of the sensor, I was not aware >>that the sensor is in the console, I just assumed that all the sensors >>were located out in the ISS. >>Then that will make the sensor even higher since I have the console >>located on the second floor in my house, which would make it another >>15-20 feet higher than the ISS sensors. Could that also make a >>difference? >> > > > As a rough rule, 100' of elevation will be about a .1" Hg > (3 mb) difference. There's other factors, but those are easy numbers to > remember that'll get you close. > > > Keith > -- > CW5250 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 From kdmiller at oldsgmail.com Mon Mar 13 00:55:50 2006 From: kdmiller at oldsgmail.com (Keith Miller) Date: Mon Mar 13 00:57:43 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <4414DDF5.7090305@gladstonefamily.net> Message-ID: <377BBE54CBA14BA2AE01FFC86E321005@sauron> > -----Original Message----- > From: wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net > [mailto:wxqc-bounces@lists.gladstonefamily.net]On Behalf Of Philip > Gladstone > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:50 PM > To: spamfree@myrealbox.com; Discussion of weather data quality issues > Subject: Re: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems > > > There is another factor in barometer adjustment. Some > stations just add/subtract an offset to make the value > come out right (but also have the elevation set wrong). > This means that when the pressure changes, the reported > pressure does not track correctly. > When I was calibrating the Baro, I was checking the local airport reports every hour and adjusting the elevation in the Envoy. Being on the side of a hill with topo having 10' contours, plus the Envoy on the second floor, left some uncertainty about exact elevation. Looking at QC now, it looks like I'm tracking the local airport pretty well (which is at near the same elevation). Quick question about the new station difference thing though. What period does that cover? The period selected when one selects 3 day, 7 day, etc? Or is it different? If I look at those numbers, I track the local airport within ~.2 or so on all. Even though QC is saying a much greater difference overall. Keith -- CW5250 From Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov Mon Mar 13 11:00:15 2006 From: Michael.F.Barth at noaa.gov (Mike Barth) Date: Mon Mar 13 11:00:20 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems In-Reply-To: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> References: <004601c64566$b74ff850$6401a8c0@compaq001> Message-ID: John, If you're using the Davis software to report your data to CWOP/APRSWXNET then that may be the problem -- Davis reports a form of sea level pressure that's different than the "altimeter setting" used by CWOP/APRSWXNET. I think they're going to fix this someday, but I don't know what the status of that is. Other software packages can handle this properly -- others may want to comment on this. Mike On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, John Yurciw wrote: > When I get my daily "Weather data quality report", my Alt(mb) readings have consistantly been on the high side, about +2.00 to +2.78 and even +2.99. All my other reporting data is fine. My question is, do I need to check the elevation setting on my Davis Vantage Pro2? If I have this set incorrectly would this be the reason that I am getting the error readings from Weather Quality? I currently have it set at 171M > > Thanks in advance for the help > John > http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW4264 From spamfree at pensom.org Tue Mar 14 07:10:34 2006 From: spamfree at pensom.org (spamfree) Date: Tue Mar 14 07:09:23 2006 Subject: [wxqc] Baraometer quality problems Message-ID: <20060314011250.D9C9948808@mail.pensom.org> Hi, Yes, that can certainly be an issue. John, if you'd like to play around with the barometer issue, and the different forms of barometer reporting (sensor pressure, station pressure, altimeter, and sea level reduced pressure), you can downlowd my pressure calculator which I put together while working on a solution to this issue for the VP stations. http://www.pensom.org/weather/vptools/vptools.html Best regards, Steve ======= At 2006-03-13, 09:00:15 you wrote: ======= >John, > >If you're using the Davis software to report your data to CWOP/APRSWXNET then >that may be the problem -- Davis reports a form of sea level pressure that's >different than the "altimeter setting" used by CWOP/APRSWXNET. I think they're >going to fix this someday, but I don't know wh