Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2010-01-12 12:31:29] oleet |
kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2022-05-31 09:29:32] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== QC2 Acceptance Test & Other Possible Tests ====== | ||
- | |||
- | Subject: Acceptance test of precipitation re-distribution algorithms in QC2 (if precip. missing for >= 1 days) | ||
- | |||
- | Participants: | ||
- | |||
- | Not present: Paul | ||
- | |||
- | ===== Issues discussed: ===== | ||
- | |||
- | * Test with different kinds of precipitation data: Convective, terrain (complex/ | ||
- | |||
- | * Precipitation measurements have already 10% measurement inaccuracy; good result if we can achieve a certain (currently unknown) percentage accuracy in estimated values | ||
- | |||
- | * Convective case especially challenging: | ||
- | |||
- | * 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 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/ | ||
- | |||
- | - Regions/ | ||
- | |||
- | - Station edensity/ | ||
- | |||
- | |||