kvalobs:kvoss:system:qc2:flag:specification

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
kvalobs:kvoss:system:qc2:flag:specification [2010-03-06 16:36:52]
paule 		kvalobs:kvoss:system:qc2:flag:specification [2022-05-31 09:29:32] (current)
Line 110: Line 110:
  
 Comments to the results presented in the mail below. Comments to the results presented in the mail below.
 +
 I comment only useinfo(0-4). I comment only useinfo(0-4).
 Concerning u.info(0) I interpret "Ikke hele QC2" as "Ikke alle eksisterende QC2-kontroller". As existing QC2 checks we can define fs=5-A (QC2d-1), ftime=0-3 (QC2d-2), fw=0-6 (QC2d-3) and fd=7-B (QC2m-2), but this last one is not a QC2m, but rather a QC2d. I propose to skip fstat=0-2 (QC2d-4) and fclim=0-3 (QC2m-1), because these checks will take a lot of time to implement. I think those will be postponed until the other are implemented and work well. With "QC1 er gjennomført" I understand this as "Minst en QC1-kontroll gjennomført". Concerning u.info(0) I interpret "Ikke hele QC2" as "Ikke alle eksisterende QC2-kontroller". As existing QC2 checks we can define fs=5-A (QC2d-1), ftime=0-3 (QC2d-2), fw=0-6 (QC2d-3) and fd=7-B (QC2m-2), but this last one is not a QC2m, but rather a QC2d. I propose to skip fstat=0-2 (QC2d-4) and fclim=0-3 (QC2m-1), because these checks will take a lot of time to implement. I think those will be postponed until the other are implemented and work well. With "QC1 er gjennomført" I understand this as "Minst en QC1-kontroll gjennomført".
 +
  
 Concerning u.info(4) it is possible to interpret spatial QC2 interpolation as "5: Romkontroll, basert på observasjonsdata". I prefer this instead of "7: Romkontroll, basert på modelldata". Concerning u.info(4) it is possible to interpret spatial QC2 interpolation as "5: Romkontroll, basert på observasjonsdata". I prefer this instead of "7: Romkontroll, basert på modelldata".
Line 118: Line 120:
 For me it should be reasonable to do the flagging like this: For me it should be reasonable to do the flagging like this:
  
-1. RR24. We have no QC1, only QC2 (fd=7). Then u.info(0)=6. I prefer u.info(4)=5. u.info=68965. +  * 1. RR24. We have no QC1, only QC2 (fd=7). Then u.info(0)=6. I prefer u.info(4)=5. u.info=68965. 
-2. RR24. We have QC1 (fr=1, fcc=4) and QC2 (fd=7). u.info=58965. +  * 2. RR24. We have QC1 (fr=1, fcc=4) and QC2 (fd=7). u.info=58965. 
-3. ftime (TAN/TAX). We have no QC1. fr=6 indicates that original is rejected (and corrected), but this must be due to inconsistence discovered and corrected in QC2 (ftime=1). With this new fw-flag we should have had c.info=1000000160000000 and u.info=60334. +  * 3. ftime (TAN/TAX). We have no QC1. fr=6 indicates that original is rejected (and corrected), but this must be due to inconsistence discovered and corrected in QC2 (ftime=1). With this new fw-flag we should have had c.info=1000000160000000 and u.info=60334. 
-4. ftime. Corresponding to 3. c.info=1000000260000000 and u.info=60334. +  * 4. ftime. Corresponding to 3. c.info=1000000260000000 and u.info=60334. 
-5. ftime. This time ftime=3 (ikke korrigert pga uegnet metode). I interpret this as "original value rejected". c.info=1000002300000000 and u.info=60389. If original value is kept uncorrected, we have c.info=1000000300000000 and u.info=60309. +  * 5. ftime. This time ftime=3 (ikke korrigert pga uegnet metode). I interpret this as "original value rejected". c.info=1000002300000000 and u.info=60389. If original value is kept uncorrected, we have c.info=1000000300000000 and u.info=60309. 
-6. This is fnum, not ftime. +  * 6. This is fnum, not ftime. 
-I skip all fnum, because we have chosen fw. I skip all fclim (see above). +  * I skip all fnum, because we have chosen fw. I skip all fclim (see above). 
-13. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=1). Then u.info is OK. +  * 13. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=1). Then u.info is OK. 
-14. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=2). Then u.info is OK. +  * 14. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=2). Then u.info is OK. 
-15. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=3). Then u.info=50105. +  * 15. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=3). Then u.info=50105. 
-16. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=4). Then u.info=50205. +  * 16. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=4). Then u.info=50205. 
-17. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=5). Then u.info=50205. +  * 17. fw. We have QC1 and QC2 (fw=5). Then u.info=50205. 
-18. fw. We have QC1 and QC2, but fw=8 is not defined. +  * 18. fw. We have QC1 and QC2, but fw=8 is not defined. 
-19. No QC2. We have QC1. Then u.info=70000 +  * 19. No QC2. We have QC1. Then u.info=70000 
-20. No QC2. We have QC1. Then u.info=70000 +  * 20. No QC2. We have QC1. Then u.info=70000 
-21. No QC2. We have no QC1. Original value is missing. Then u.info is OK.+  * 21. No QC2. We have no QC1. Original value is missing. Then u.info is OK.
  
  
 And then to your email of 3 February. And then to your email of 3 February.
  
-1. fcp=3 which means "Originalverdi svært mistenkelig). fhqc=1 (OK) Then u.info is OK. + 
-2. We have QC1 (fpre=6). fmis=2 (original value rejected). Then u.info=7?38900?00000XX1.+  * 1. fcp=3 which means "Originalverdi svært mistenkelig). fhqc=1 (OK) Then u.info is OK. 
 +  * 2. We have QC1 (fpre=6). fmis=2 (original value rejected). Then u.info=7?38900?00000XX1.
 It may happen that u.info(1)=1 but I don't know if this is usual in combination with fpre=6. If correct it is difficult to decide if u.info(7)=4 or 3 or another value. I understand that with QC2 on u.info(7) becomes like 0, which may be OK in real life? It may happen that u.info(1)=1 but I don't know if this is usual in combination with fpre=6. If correct it is difficult to decide if u.info(7)=4 or 3 or another value. I understand that with QC2 on u.info(7) becomes like 0, which may be OK in real life?
  
  • kvalobs/kvoss/system/qc2/flag/specification.1267893412.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2022-05-31 09:23:18
  • (external edit)