[wxqc] Humidity/Dew Point

[Hank Sniadoch]

That's why I don't change my readings to agree with the analysis.  My 
station(s) are at 1400 ft and typically I get cold air settling .... 
last night I matched the coldest readings in NY but I know my readings 
are accurate since I calibrate my stations with thermometers (I have 2) 
that are calibrated and accurate to within 0.1 degrees .... (cost $300 
each) .... sometimes I'm 10-15 degrees colder than a mountaintop 3-4 
miles away from me .... I can't believe microclimates !!!!

Milford Weather wrote:

> I have to agree with Rich; the goal is to report accurate readings for 
> /your/ location.  On calm nights I frequently get a temperature bump 
> around 4am that I do not see on any other station in my area.  I live 
> on the side of a hill and attribute it to the cold air settling into 
> the valley and forcing the warmer air upward.  I have spent a career 
> of engineering and calibration and maintain my station as accurately 
> as possible so the results are accurate and true.  If that is done by 
> each of us, the data will be a true representation of the conditions 
> at our own locations, which is what I see as the goal.
>
>  
>
> Paul
>
>  
>
> CW3414
>
> Weather Spotter
>
> http://www.PDfamily.com/weather <http://www.pdfamily.com/weather/>
>
>  
>
> The goal isn't to match the analysis readings - the goal is to have
>
> accurate data. :-)
>
>  
>
> You may very well be in a micro-climate in which the humidity readings
>
> are correct. In my case, for example, I'm in a narrow stream valley, and
>
> my dewpoint readings are *always* flagged as bad. Nonetheless, they're
>
> also totally accurate, when I measure independently using a precision
>
> thermometer and sling psychrometer.
>
>  
>
> There seems to be a huge amount of concern on the wx list about making
>
> sure that stations agree with the analysis - and that's simply the wrong
>
> approach. The analysis is, and will always be, an approximation of
>
> reality that doesn't necessarily derive correct results for all
>
> stations. There are just too many potential variables that must be
>
> accomodated. The analysis is useful to spot trends and flag potential
>
> problems - but just because it indicates that your readings are bad
>
> doesn't mean that they're bad. To determine that, you need independent
>
> confirmation of the values you generate.
>
>  
>
> - Rich
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> wxqc mailing list
>
> wxqc at 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 at 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/20060507/1a1f1d1a/attachment-0001.html