[wxqc] Looking for help with Station - Odd shift in analysis

Ted Lum gladstonefamily73.net at tedlum.com
Fri Feb 5 21:29:21 CST 2016


That's rather off-topic and irrelevant since, as far as we know, PEET 
stations don't output MSLP, so there's no correlation to Davis stations 
or their idiosyncratic behavior, and neither Virtual VP nor Cumulus even 
remotely support a PEET station either.

Although, replacing it with a Davis station would probably solve a 
number of problems.

On 2/5/2016 7:24 PM, Jim Browning wrote:
> The only software program that I ever found that sent the correct 
> barometer to CWOP from a Davis unit is VP Live. I use Virtual VP to 
> allow two programs to run at the same time and then have VP live send 
> to CWOP and use Cumulus to send to all other  sites. I used to use 
> WUHU but for some reason ( I don’t remember ) changed to Cumulus.
> *From:* Chris Miller <mailto:c_miller_1 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 5:13 PM
> *To:* Discussion of weather data quality issues 
> <mailto:wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [wxqc] Looking for help with Station - Odd shift in 
> analysis
> Just as a side note, it looks like I have a good sample that has all 
> of my local stations under a wide airmass.  All of the sensors have 
> come into alignment and it looks like I am about 2.5 mb low, compared 
> to them, since I restored WUHU and set the barometer back to 
> displaying the pressure with the correction factor of 23.25 mb being 
> added.  Would that be a correct assessment, based on this chart link?
> http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/AU770?date=20160205&addnl=AV065&addnl=CYYB&addnl=CYWA&addnl=AR943&Add+to+charts=Add+to+charts&.cgifields=addnl
> *From:* Chris Miller <mailto:c_miller_1 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, 5 February, 2016 18:05
> *To:* Discussion of weather data quality issues 
> <mailto:wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [wxqc] Looking for help with Station - Odd shift in 
> analysis
> I was running off then tried it on, both for a few days.  There 
> appears to be no influence to the displayed value in WUHU and no 
> apparent shift on the graphing from my CWOP data thus far.
> *From:* Jim Browning <mailto:jimsuebrown at vtc.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 February, 2016 19:21
> *To:* Discussion of weather data quality issues 
> <mailto:wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [wxqc] Looking for help with Station - Odd shift in 
> analysis
> WUHU does have an altimeter setting for CWOP look under tweaks bottom 
> right corner enable QNH.
> *From:* Chris Miller <mailto:c_miller_1 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:41 PM
> *To:* 'Discussion of weather data quality issues' 
> <mailto:wxqc at lists.gladstonefamily.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [wxqc] Looking for help with Station - Odd shift in 
> analysis
> Before I forget myself, thanks for all those who have helped be try 
> and bug this weirdness out so far. It is appreciated.
> That is how I had the station setup initially, at least pretty close.  
> My conversion factor was a bit of a guess at first, but I managed to 
> get closer to the figure with some of the aviation calculators.  About 
> the time that Ted Lum gave me a number of correction values, I ran 
> across http://www.srh.noaa.gov/epz/?n=wxcalc_altimetersetting and used 
> that correction to get my cellphone pressure reading, previously used 
> to drag a correction value for it from the airport, back to my 
> station. I can make the necessary correction to the MADIS value that 
> Ted gave me, but it is only off by about .2 mb right now for that.    
> Also, I am back to using WUHU.  Hopefully, Win10 will let it run 
> properly this time, although I expect I may have to go back to Weather 
> Display.  It is a shame that Weather Display is not keeping my basic 
> settings for the station communication on restart, maybe that is a 
> trial software thing, but that is not for here.
> The sudden shift in expected pressure is what is driving me bonkers, I 
> guess, especially when all the stations are gathered together for 
> readings.  I think, when I was using the modelling to get my pressure 
> to spec, I ended up just entered the value to line. This was because I 
> thought it was due to my station being too far from the reference 
> stations (Yes, I know, bad bad.)
> Usually, the two government stations and the two CWOP stations I 
> mentioned have good analysis, yet in winter mine shifts on average 6 
> mb higher than my actual reading with no changes. Basically, MADIS has 
> flagged the station as Q rather than V lately.  So, I am presuming 
> that something I have set is giving MADIS bum data?
> I admit the jagged data, while trying to get the station back to trim, 
> made my standard deviation go wide a few weeks.  However, once I get 
> it settled, my station tracks the few stations I referenced in a nice 
> tight group, save when the storms are pushing through.   Which seems 
> to be a lot lately. Smile
>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://server.gladstonefamily.net/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20160205/5c6f8add/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1046 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://server.gladstonefamily.net/pipermail/wxqc/attachments/20160205/5c6f8add/attachment.png>


More information about the wxqc mailing list