Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2010-01-11 13:50:33] matthiasm |
kvalobs:kvoss:meetings:20100110 [2022-05-31 09:29:32] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== QC2 Acceptance Test & Other Possible Tests ====== | ====== QC2 Acceptance Test & Other Possible Tests ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Subject: Acceptance test of precipitation re-distribution algorithms in QC2 (if precip. missing for >= 1 days) | ||
| Participants: | 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/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||