Quality Assurance Procedures in the Oklahoma Mesonetwork

Abstract

High quality data sources are critical to scientists, engineers, and decision makers alike. The models that scientists develop and test with quality-assured data eventually become used by a wider community, from policy makers' long-term strategies based upon weather and climate predictions to emergency managers' decisions to deploy response crews. The process of developing high quality data in one network, the Oklahoma Mesonetwork (Mesonet) is detailed in this manuscript. The Oklahoma Mesonet quality-assurance procedures consist of four principal components: an instrument laboratory, field visits, automated computer routines, and manual inspection. The instrument laboratory ensures that all sensors that are deployed in the network measure up to high standards established by the Mesonet Steering Committee. Routine and emergency field visits provide a manual inspection of the performance of the sensors and replacement as necessary. Automated computer routines monitor data each day, set data flags as appropriate, and alert personnel of potential errors in the data. Manual inspection provides human judgment to the process, catching subtle errors that automated techniques may miss. The quality-assurance (QA) process is tied together through efficient communication links. A QA manager serves as the conduit through whom all questions concerning data quality flow. The QA manager receives daily reports from the automated system, issues trouble tickets to guide the technicians in the field, and issues summary reports to the broader community of data users. Technicians and other Mesonet staff remain in contact through cellular communications, pagers, and the World Wide Web. Together, these means of communication provide a seamless system: from identifying suspicious data, to field investigations, to feedback on action taken by the technician.

Calibrated Probabilistic Forecasting at the Stateline Wind Energy Center: The Regime-Switching Space-Time (RST) Method

“…The raw data record at the three sites is largely but not entirely complete. We imputed a minimal amount of isolated missing data (less than 0.03% for calendar year 2003) and adopted the quality assurance procedures proposed by Shafer et al (2000) and Fiebrich and Crawford (2001). Specifically, we applied range, step and persistence tests to the raw data at the 10-minute aggregation level.…”

Challenges Associated with Classifying Urban Meteorological Stations: The Oklahoma City Micronet Example

“…In addition, each Mesonet site deployed as part of OKCNET includes sensors to measure air temperature at 9 m. All Oklahoma Mesonet data are collected and transmitted to a central point every 5 minutes where they are quality controlled, distributed and archived [35,37,38].…”

Daily temperature records from a mesonet in the foothills of the Canadian Rocky Mountains, 2005–2010

“…In all cases, estimated values calculated from neighbouring sites are compared to observed values and large deviations are flagged as potential errors. Shafer et al (2000) use a weighted average of neighbouring stations to calculate a value for the station being checked, with differences exceeding three standard deviations flagged as suspicious. In mountain regions, Lanzante (1996) suggests 10 using vertical neighbours (closest station with a similar elevation) as an alternative to horizontal proximity.…”