Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2010-01-11 13:49:27] matthiasm created |
kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2022-05-31 09:29:32] (current) |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== QC2 Kvalobs Meeting | + | ====== 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 (yet 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/ | ||
+ | |||