[wxqc] Failing Baro L3 Spatial Consistency

Ted Lum gladstonefamily73.net at tedlum.com
Wed Jun 29 01:53:28 CDT 2016


Well, that's not true, you're not close to most of the nearby stations 
which is where the statistics come from and is why you're failing. Also, 
Wunderground is not going to match at you're elevation since they use 
MSLP. However, the problem isn't you, it's all the other stations in 
your area. Most of your neighbors have one problem or another. 
Unfortunately, all of that bogus data, collectively, looks good because 
it's the majority, which makes you the outlier. The QC can't tell right 
from wrong, it can only tell majority from outlier. In this case the 
premise on which it's predicated is invalid. Your fate is in the hands 
of the people around you.

On 6/29/2016 1:23 AM, Miles Bosworth wrote:
> I have my software setup correctly, and for long periods of time I get 
> a 99% or 100% Madis quality rating for my barometer data, then it goes 
> complete FUBAR (the rating not the pressure readings)  Right now it is 
> at 40% for the last 7 day period, yet when I compare my readings with 
> all the nearby weather stations (not just those on CWOP, but also WU) 
> my readings are within half a mb or less of the average of the other 
> stations, and 0.01mb different than the airport which is 12 miles away.
>
> Annoying, but I do NOT see it as my problem, and I am tempted to just 
> stop sending data to CWOP.
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ted Lum 
> <gladstonefamily73.net at tedlum.com 
> <mailto:gladstonefamily73.net at tedlum.com>> wrote:
>
>     It looks like the calibration is probably off. You would enter the
>     current MSLP value at you location and the console would correct
>     it's calculations. That can be done with Weatherlink or on the
>     console directly. I don't think programs like Weather Display have
>     implemented the ability to plug that into the console the way
>     weatherlink does.
>
>
>     On 6/26/2016 12:34 AM, Wayne Thomas wrote:
>>     On 6/18/2016 9:24 AM, Ted Lum wrote:
>>>     It looks like you may not be sending Altimeter pressure. It also
>>>     looks like the pressure may not be calibrated. Check your
>>>     software to be sure it supports Altimeter pressure and be sure
>>>     it's configured correctly to do so. Then, determine if it needs
>>>     calibration.
>>>
>>>     On 6/18/2016 3:01 AM, Wayne Thomas wrote:
>>>>     Hello,
>>>>     I have a situation that I would like to correct but have been
>>>>     unable to do so. My station which was replaced as part of an
>>>>     upgrade program last fall is failing the above mentioned test.
>>>>     I have tried relocation and basically everything I can think of
>>>>     except using offsets in the software which I try to resist
>>>>     doing as in some cases it only masks a problem.
>>>>
>>>>     Anyway you can see the data here and the accompanying fault
>>>>     description
>>>>     *http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/C8217?baro_date=2016-06-08#baro
>>>>     *
>>>>
>>>>     Website data is located here *http://www.smythweather.net
>>>>     *
>>>>     The station is a normally aspirated Davis VP2 . I have had a
>>>>     look at the surrounding data and honestly it doesn't look
>>>>     encouraging as to what I need to do for a correction to this
>>>>     problem.
>>>>
>>>>     Any suggestions much appreciated !!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks In Advance For Your Time!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Regards,
>>>>     Wayne 
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>     Hello Ted,
>>     Just a quick question about this problem I have with the BARO
>>     reading. Looks like I am still having troubles with the Spatial
>>     Consistency Testing
>>     Looks like I may need to make an offset in the software for
>>     calibration.. kinda surprised that would have to be with a new
>>     station and Davis quality being good. Anyway let me know what you
>>     think and how much offset I need to enter if that's the route I need.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Wayne Thomas
>


-- 
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/20160629/bb6c5ee7/attachment.html>


More information about the wxqc mailing list