I suggest you ...

consider validating station data in a method similar to NOAA's MADIS system

Aside from the current absolute checks, consider validating data (temperature, dewpoint, pressure, avg wind speed/direction) with a relative metric against five other stations within a radius (e.g. 25 miles). If the reported value is more than (n) delta from the average of the other five stations consistently over several reports, consider it to be suspect. Ultimately, develop a quality grade (e,g, A through F, Excellent through poor) for every station based on well data compares over a reasonably short historical average (one week?).

The idea is to help users choose better reporting stations, and also help station owners better recognize that there may be a potential problem with the data that their station is reporting.

If modeling and computation horsepower are a concern, perhaps consider using the quality report from MADIS, if possible.

2 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • sso
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    N9PBYN9PBY shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    11 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • sso
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...

      Feedback and Knowledge Base