Don't feel bad - mine look similar and have been that way for quite a while now. I just ignore them. It is very obvious that something in their algorithms is not right.
Please forgive my impertinence as a newbie; but for this CWOP QC red X thingy...I have this vision of some guy in a room in his mother's basement using a pentium II laptop with an Excel 95 spreadsheet trying to second guess a government agency that uses rows and rows, banks and banks of supercomputers for their weather modeling..... 
Okay, here is some background on the CWOP Barometer QC checks. Years ago, no one was having any problems with (or even complaining about) the CWOP QC reports. I was tracking very closely to what the analysis reports showed and I also got consistent two-thumbs up reports. Then, back a year or so ago everyone's barometer CWOP QC reports started going crazy with just about everyone getting red X's on their reports, including me. Many of us contacted the CWOP QC folks and were immediately told that the algorithms had been changed and that the problem was with our barometers being either faulty or out of calibration. Well, that went over like a lead balloon. It was obvious back then, as well as now, that something is drastically wrong with the data that the CWOP QC folks are using. As many have written in this thread and many other threads, barometric pressures simply DO NOT change that dramatically and continue to do so over an extended period of time. Sure they can swing very drastically when there is an approaching storm, hurricane or tornado but continuous spiking 24-hours a day is indicative of other data collection issues that the powers to be don't want to address or acknowledge.
I have tried very diligently to set my barometer to an accurate reading based on a nearby airport but neither my readings nor those at the airport show any of the spiking I see on the Analysis reports for my area. I can only conclude that while I do not have a room full of computers or a Pentium II running an Excel 95 spreadsheet and I am NOT trying to second-guess the experts, the problem is NOT MINE. I am only saying that what I and many others see in our analysis reports just can't be accurate.
For these reasons alone, I have simply made the decision to not even look at the CWOP QC reports since they don't show reality.
W3DRM, my sincerest apologies to you and anyone/everyone that took umbrage at my statement....my bad, I was less than completely clear about who/what I was referring to (with the laptop).
I was actually supporting what you and so many others have stated.....
I'll try and sort out the mess I've just made....here we go....in my first post (ever) I had asked about "Who or What" was the source of the never ending grief with the red X. A fine young gentleman pointed me in the direction of....
http://wxqa.com/AllenFreeMetQC.pdf.......which I read and read, and hopefully understood, and then reread again......
from page 2.....MADIS ingests data from many non-NOAA/NWS Mesonet stations
Creates a spatially dense met data set to assist with forecasting
Usually small, privately operated or DOT related stations
Generally do not have routine QC
MADIS applies buddy-system QC checks
to these data
Models data for each station based on nearby stations
Generates modeled minus measured error data in real
time
from page 5....CWOP value added:
Takes MADIS QC and repackages it into an accessible
formatUser friendly, “push” email system
Daily, Weekly, Monthly quality summaries and diagnostics
for core surface obs: Temp, RH/DP, BP, Wind
from the CWOP info page...
Quality Control Notes
This page reports on the quality control checks performed by MADIS. The green check mark and red cross are chosen based on the average performance during the analysis period (which is selectable above).
The red cross can appear even if MADIS reports that all observations pass the MADIS QC checks.
The 'MADIS rating' reports on the percentage of observations that pass the MADIS checks. You should aim for two thumbs up!
How the hell can someone/something take data that has been QC'd and accepted (two thumbs up) by NWS/MADIS (banks and banks, rows and rows of supercomputers) to use in their weather models and then, ..... after the fact, run their own flippin' QC (value added) on the NWS/MADIS QC (using a pentium II laptop with an Excel 95 spreadsheet)....and then suggest by large red X's over top of 2 green thumbs up....that the NWS/MADIS QC is wrong?
Algorithms, me ars~
Can't work....doesn't work.....not even on paper.
Boys and girls......each and every one of you has forgotten more about weather, weather stations and all the associated sundry info and knowledge that goes along with it......than I will ever learn......and again, my apologies to all, for being less than completely clear about where my sarcasm was pointed.
