Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2010-01-11 15:00:02]
matthiasm
+++ kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2010-01-12 12:31:55]
oleet
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Participants: Per-Ove, Solfrid, Ole Einar, Matthias (author of this page)
-Forfall: Paul
+Not present: Paul
+===== Issues discussed: =====
   * Test with different kinds of precipitation data: Convective, terrain (complex/flat), proximity to Swedish border
-  * Precipitation measurements have already 10% measurement inaccuracy; good result if we can achieve say 100% accuracy in estimated values
+  * Precipitation measurements have already 10% measurement inaccuracy; good result if we can achieve a certain (yet unknown) percentage accuracy in estimated values
   * Convective case especially challenging: Half of stations could have precipitation, other half not.
   * Automatic QC2 should give better result than HQC --> Could this be tested? (Hypothetical HQC test dataset could be used and compared with automatic QC2)
   * Tests of QC2 should be carried out using historic data. Results should be compared with measurements.
   * We have enough data for extensive evaluation and reliable statistical error estimations.
-  * Should HQC still check results of automatic QC2 (probably not)
-  * Is QC2 giving better results than values of numerical models that are stored in KDVH. --> Test
-Tests of different datasets/precipitation types:
+  * Should HQC still check results of automatic QC2 (probably not feasible)
+  * Is QC2 giving better results than values of numerical models that are stored in KDVH. --> Test this
+===== Acceptance tests with different datasets: =====
   - Precipitation type (convective/frontal)
   - Regions/topography/catchment areas
   - Station edensity/coverage