WXforum.net
Weather Station Hardware => Other Weather Station Hardware => Topic started by: kbellis on January 01, 2019, 11:12:50 PM
-
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Who wants to know the height of what exactly, and in which datum?
Many online weather services want to have a little box filled in that's related to height when registering a weather station, but these sites use inconsistent language site to site, sometimes even what seems like inappropriate terminology, and in general, give little in terms of an explanation of exactly where on what bit of hardware they're needing an elevation; e.g., individual sensor's height, grade, etc., and then there's the totally neglected subject of datum, something which we all need to be paying attention to in advance of the coming purely gravimetric modeling of the geoid.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
So what are you trying to say? So far a lot of words without really saying anything, especially when we have been working with geoids and modelling gravity in relation to ellipsoidal and orthometric heights for many years.
-
I'm curious what you think about determining height values for the purposes of weather stations, and in particular regard to online services that you report.
Specific vertical datum, including the next height system for the US, should also be considered whenever talking about heights.
-
In a nutshell, a discussion of any measurement, not from the perspective of meteorology, but rather from that of a metrology, I believe is worthwhile. I also think it worth talking about in the same discussion; the resolution of the measurement, or the instrument's least count. Back to the matter of what height value any online weather service is actually asking the user to provide, I'm still scratching my head. :?
-
Uh, far out man :shock:
-
Ok so what type of heights do weather providers request or specify, relative to what?
-
Ok so what type of heights do weather providers request or specify, relative to what?
Hi Matt,
That's what I've been wondering too. Starting this thread is a first blush at trying to understand this subject. With the now 2-week long shutdown of about 1/4 of the federal government, this may not have been the best time to try digging into what standards various entities, including NOAA, have pertaining to height related metadata on their equipment. My inquiries to NWS were responded to with a muted, "Due to the government shut-down we are only allowed to answer mission critical questions. Please get back to us once the shut-down has ended.". Writing to the FAA concerning our local AWOS so far has only yielded a null response.
In a response to my writing to a friend of a friend, and who is retired meteorologist, Rick wrote back in part:
"To get halfway decent barometric pressure measurements, one needs to know the altitude of the pressure sensor. Probably to the nearest 5 ft to 10 ft depending on the quality of the weather station. I generally use a USGS topo map to determine that. Some libraries have topo maps, but suspect many don’t. One can also get a fair idea using a hand held GPS, but the vertical component of GPS isn’t great unless the device is of very high quality therefore one reason I rely on the topo maps. There are other sources besides the topo maps. For weather stations I generally want the pressure to be reduced to mean sea level and I use millibars or hecto pascals for units. Depending how on far the station is going to be from Trenton Airport, you can use the latest pressure reported by the Bar Harbor FAA weather station in either inches of HG or millibars. It is better to use that if it isn’t windy – slacker pressure gradient. It can be found at:
https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KBHB.html
You sound like a scientist or engineer with your comments/map about the orthometric height change. In all honesty, for these type of simple weather stations, I wouldn’t worry about that level accuracy. It is an interesting point however and probably I should be a bit more rigorous and take into consideration such changes for my network of weather stations.
I think you need to decide which parameters are the most important for you to obtain good measurements from and perhaps what the data is going to be used for. For example, if you want temperature data which can be compared to other stations including those operated by the NOAA or the FAA, then you need to try to follow the exposure standards they use. That isn’t too easy to find in this heavily forested state. For e.g., you want the sensors out in the open and not under a tree or next to a building or pavement. The same applies for wind and precipitation, but if one’s instruments are pretty simple and the data requirements aren’t too rigorous, then sensor exposure isn’t too critical. I know quite a lot of sensor exposure and can share some of the standards if it is needed."
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
The NWS (https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?CityName=Ellsworth&state=ME&site=CAR&textField1=44.5857&textField2=-68.4961#.XC9X5c17ljE) shows the local AWOS at our county airport displaying its elevation as 82 ft. The airnav (https://www.airnav.com/airport/KBHB) listing shows it to be 83.2 ft. Both of these values; i.e., 82 and 83.2, 1) don't identify to which vertical datum these elevations relate; 2) and are spatially higher than the little building housing the AWOS. Grade near the building is about 71.5 ft NAVD88. Given that wind speed and direction are critical to pilots, these heights might therefore pertain more likely to the anemometer than the barometer.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
A couple of days ago, I brought the Ambient Weather WS-2902A display console down to the airport to check its barometric reading against the nearby AWOS located about 3200' to the north of the public air terminal.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
The day and time turned out to be perfect with a large steady mass of high pressure which only rose 0.01" over the course of the 90 minutes of observations.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
The actual orthometric height of the anemometer is irrelevant, the main weather criteria with this being the height above ground level and relativity to surrounding obstructions.
Barometric height is typically relative to Sea Level pressure or Station height pressure, this being typically referenced to/from mean sea level. NAVD29 was essentially referenced to sea level and this could be an adjustment of multiple sea level recording stations or as determined from even a single station, levels were then determined physically by geodetic levelling, level and staff along thousands of miles of network then adjusted. As more and more physical levelling was completed over the years new adjustments were possible but the mean sea level origin remained basically the same even though in more recent times GPS methods has been able to highlight anomalies in the levelling and even in the mean sea level determination due to a whole range of things way way beyond the space to include here. Mean sea level heights between warm and cold waters across a country can account for differences of up to 3 feet.
With regard the difference (1-2 feet) between say NAVD29 and NAVD88 then this is no big deal in relation to the height setting of a Barometer, essentially it is still a relationship relative to mean sea level but one that has become more refined over the years with additional data available today.
As for GPS derived heights , just be a little careful with these as this is where quite large differences can become confusing as GPS (ellipsoid) height can be quite different to orthometric type heights by +/- 100 metres or so depending on your location on the globe. Geodetic GPS receivers can determine ellipsoid heights at the mm level as the ellipsoid is a pure mathematically figure where as the local orthometric heights are rather undulating for quite a number of reasons relative the ellipsoid and this is where determining local orthometric type heights from GPS ellipsoid heights is quite complicated but then most of the mathematics and modelling is generally already done and knowing the location (Lat/Long) the difference between ellipsoid and Geoid can be determined by model interpolation and quite reasonable orthometric heights can be determined within 3cm in some cases but dependent on the data behind the geoid model.
But these GPS derived heights can only ever be as good as the equipment being used and general civil handheld type GPS is 2-3 times less accurate in the vertical than the horizontal as well as using a generic global type geoid model that is more in the ball park when compared to map type approx. heights and contours etc. A handheld GPS doesn't have the means to determine what height datum is what, better to use an official map or chart for heights relating to barometer settings, that is of course unless you have access to $25,000 GNSS receivers
-
Ok so what type of heights do weather providers request or specify, relative to what?
A couple of days ago, I brought the Ambient Weather WS-2902A display console down to the airport to check its barometric reading against the nearby AWOS located about 3200' to the north of the public air terminal.
The day and time turned out to be perfect with a large steady mass of high pressure which only rose 0.01" over the course of the 90 minutes of observations.
As I stated in another thread for another member, you're comparing your non-altimeter capable console against an altimeter setting. Nothing "wrong" with that, just don't expect the accuracy to continue, especially since you set it way up at 30.30". By the time you get to "standard" pressure at 29.92", and then even lower, I'm betting it'll be considerably off and getting worse as the pressure drops further.
-
REITERATION: Elevation is your 'ground level' above mean sea level, so a console sitting on a shelf 5' above your 'ground level' is their combination which is what you enter for barometric height, because the barometer sensor is located inside the console, NOT up in the anemometer.
-
As I stated in another thread for another member, you're comparing your non-altimeter capable console against an altimeter setting. Nothing "wrong" with that, just don't expect the accuracy to continue, especially since you set it way up at 30.30". By the time you get to "standard" pressure at 29.92", and then even lower, I'm betting it'll be considerably off and getting worse as the pressure drops further.
Thanks for letting me know. I want to understand this further and what you mean by my non-altimeter capable console. I honestly thought I was following the instructions from the WS-2902A users manual, but now must give pause and study what you said. Which thread were you referring to in regards to the other member?
Kind regards,
Kelly
-
REITERATION: Elevation is your 'ground level' above mean sea level, so a console sitting on a shelf 5' above your 'ground level' is their combination which is what you enter for barometric height, because the barometer sensor is located inside the console, NOT up in the anemometer.
Thanks for your reply.
As a land surveyor, I'm more accustomed to the term "elevation" being applicable to every thing which has a vertical spatial component; e.g., elevation at grade, finished floor, height of instrument, etc., I think maybe that's why I was asking in the first place plus the vaguely worded sites asking for a number. More on that in the morning.
Kind regards,
Kelly
-
As I stated in another thread for another member, you're comparing your non-altimeter capable console against an altimeter setting. Nothing "wrong" with that, just don't expect the accuracy to continue, especially since you set it way up at 30.30". By the time you get to "standard" pressure at 29.92", and then even lower, I'm betting it'll be considerably off and getting worse as the pressure drops further.
I want to understand this further and what you mean by my non-altimeter capable console. I honestly thought I was following the instructions from the WS-2902A users manual
I'm sure you are. The thing is, the altimeter vs SLP are different, not vastly, but different. If you'll look at my Meso site, you'll see three pressures, station, SLP, and altimeter.
https://mesowest.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/meso_base.cgi?stn=C2274&unit=0&time=LOCAL&product=&year1=2018&month1=2&day1=15&hour1=12&hours=24&graph=0&past=0
Your console is meant to calculate SLP, not the altimeter. You can use the altimeter just fine (kinda), but set it closer to 29.92". As the pressure gets further from that, the error of SLP vs altimeter becomes more evident, obviously because you've set the altimeter from the airport, not SLP.
-
.... obviously because you've set the altimeter from the airport, not SLP.
Then you would be more referring to QNH?
-
.... obviously because you've set the altimeter from the airport, not SLP.
Then you would be more referring to QNH?
More reference, no. Same thing, just semantics.
-
.... obviously because you've set the altimeter from the airport, not SLP.
Then you would be more referring to QNH?
More reference, no. Same thing, just semantics.
Pretty much why I think some are going just a tad overboard in regard barometric pressure as far as weather is concerned, some of the semantics are irrelevant for the purpose.
-
.... obviously because you've set the altimeter from the airport, not SLP.
Then you would be more referring to QNH?
More reference, no. Same thing, just semantics.
Pretty much why I think some are going just a tad overboard in regard barometric pressure as far as weather is concerned, some of the semantics are irrelevant for the purpose.
Your opinion.
Just to be clear, the semantic is QNH and the altimeter are the exact same thing, SLP and the altimeter are not.
-
.... obviously because you've set the altimeter from the airport, not SLP.
Then you would be more referring to QNH?
More reference, no. Same thing, just semantics.
Pretty much why I think some are going just a tad overboard in regard barometric pressure as far as weather is concerned, some of the semantics are irrelevant for the purpose.
Your opinion.
Just to be clear, the semantic is QNH and the altimeter are the exact same thing, SLP and the altimeter are not.
Which is why it would be handy for you to explain why there is any real need to have any interest in altimeter etc as far as weather observations is concerned?
-
Simple. The altimeter setting is what every media outlet in the country uses as it comes from airport ASOS/AWOS, ect., which are practically all used as official measurements, let alone the fact it's what I issued as a professional for 30 years. Makes comparisons very easy.
-
Gee some days some really try and confuse the crap out of something that should be really simple, now you are saying media outlets are interested in QNH? NO wonder some get a tad confused with barometric pressure which for most purposes all people want to know is , it is steady or it is rising/falling and would that be fast or slow, everyday people listening to the media don't need the QNH area forecast, they ain't interested and wouldn't know what to do with it in any case
-
I put mine up yonder a bit.
And I don't embed 18 quotes in my posts.
-
I put mine up yonder a bit.
:lol:
yonder_a_bit ft?
-
Then you would be more referring to QNH?
Cool! An altimetry reference! Query: Nautical Height - maybe good for a different thread? Though it does sound interesting to this newbie! Thanks Matt.
-
More reference, no. Same thing, just semantics.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
If you'll look at my Meso site, you'll see three pressures, station, SLP, and altimeter.
Hmmm, I'm seeing four:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
Back on the topic for a tic
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
1) WU asks for both the height of the instrument, anemometer from the looks of the little illustration, and also asks for an elevation. Implicitly (?) this elevation would be at grade of the sensor array. Datum doesn't seem to matter. Oh, and before I forget it again (CRS!), the difference between NAVD88 and NGVD29 varies from place to place. For us here in coastal Hancock County, the difference between these two terrestrial datum is less than 0.7', while elsewhere in the U.S., you'll find differences over three feet. Here's a couple of examples, but I encourage those interested in learning of the difference for their own locality to use VDatum (http://vdatum.noaa.gov/) - after the hostage situation has ended. For example:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
2) PWSWeather asks for an elevation and almost explicitly (ref. TopoZone link) is asking for an elevation at grade of the sensor array. No specific terrestrial datum is specified.
3) Weathercloud also appears to be requesting for a ground elevation for the sensor array, but they're using the word "Altitude" for reasons unclear. They also ask for the height of the PWS. No specific terrestrial datum is specified.
4) Ambient Weather isn't particularly interested in the elevation of grade for the sensor array or the height of anything. I asked Ambient for clarity and got this reply:
VKB: "Does AmbientWeather.net use elevation information? I can't find anywhere in the Dashboard that reflects height of instrument, grade elevation at instrument, or height of barometer.
Thanks
Kelly"
AW: "Nope. The calibration is done on the console with an offset.
Ed"
5) AWEKAS asks for elevation above sea level with its tool tip saying "Indicates the altitude of the station or measuring point." No specific terrestrial datum is specified.
6) CWOP appears to also want the elevation at grade of the sensor array; however, the referencing links in the CWOP FAQs that I chased after are old and returned 404 errors. No specific terrestrial datum is specified from what I saw.
From everything that members have posted above, and elsewhere on this forum, and from what might get pieced together from looking at the above cited online services, elevations, irrespective of a specific terrestrial datum, related to the PWS are primarily located at grade of the outdoor sensor array.
Confession: In addition to an elevation at grade being sought, my inner nerd child was imagining it worth considering the heights of other things, like each of the sensors individually, e.g., rain gauge, thermometer, barometer, anemometer, and further, some note of the proximity and nature of nearby air current obstructions. I guess that's a tad overboard ;)
-
If you'll look at my Meso site, you'll see three pressures, station, SLP, and altimeter.
https://mesowest.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/meso_base.cgi?stn=C2274&unit=0&time=LOCAL&product=&year1=2018&month1=2&day1=15&hour1=12&hours=24&graph=0&past=0
Jim, I looked at the information for your site and wondered if I'm seeing this correctly:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
And if that is your Davis weather station, its elevation at grade shown below is based on lidar data and should be pretty good. I can't speak to what the design specs called for when it was flown, but for our stuff flown in 2010, we had specified 15cm which translates to a statistical 95% confidence when delivering 2' contours.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
now you are saying media outlets are interested in QNH? NO wonder some get a tad confused with barometric pressure which for most purposes all people want to know is , it is steady or it is rising/falling and would that be fast or slow, everyday people listening to the media don't need the QNH area forecast, they ain't interested and wouldn't know what to do with it in any case
Media outlets have been using airport data as long as I can remember across the entire nation. What do they use where you live???
I'm glad you know "everyday people" and that they're too uneducated to understand the same pressure measurement that's been fed to them for decades. Speak for yourself.
-
If you'll look at my Meso site, you'll see three pressures, station, SLP, and altimeter.
Hmmm, I'm seeing four:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Yeah, I obviously left out the 1500 meter one.
-
If you'll look at my Meso site, you'll see three pressures, station, SLP, and altimeter.
https://mesowest.utah.edu/cgi-bin/droman/meso_base.cgi?stn=C2274&unit=0&time=LOCAL&product=&year1=2018&month1=2&day1=15&hour1=12&hours=24&graph=0&past=0
Jim, I looked at the information for your site and wondered if I'm seeing this correctly:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
:shock: :shock: :shock: I'm not sure, but I think I feel violated...That's exactly where my ISS is. My anny is in the left corner of the wall up a pole and my RW tipper is at the bend of the wall on the right, hardwired to the ISS.
I've never been able to see my ISS from space before. :shock: :shock: :shock:
You even got my name right.....
-
And if that is your Davis weather station, its elevation at grade shown below is based on lidar data and should be pretty good. I can't speak to what the design specs called for when it was flown, but for our stuff flown in 2010, we had specified 15cm which translates to a statistical 95% confidence when delivering 2' contours.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Well whatta ya know, that is the exact elevation I have dialed in at the console, 2412' MSL. Whether that's the exact height of it, I made an educated guess...
-
Pima County has a wonderful GIS department, and most importantly, USGS has made lidar acquired data more convenient to access than ever. Here's more from your neighborhood on SRTM Worldwide Elevation Data (1-arc-second Resolution, SRTM Plus V3)
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
I have truncated this topic and moved all the responses after this one to a new (locked) topic as an example of bad behavior amongst the participants. You all know better. The off-topic and rude comments are not conducive to discussion and create a hostile discussion environment. Please refrain from that type of posting in the future.
Admin.
-
Many people, including myself, are surprised to learn that in most personal weather stations, the barometer sensor is located in the display console. I think there may be some exceptions with Rainwise equipment; however, I haven't looked into it very much yet. I did have an interesting, albeit brief, conversation with Richie, who worked for 7 years at the Bar Harbor factory and later when Rainwise moved to Trenton into the former Display Concepts building. He mentioned the barometric sensor was "soldered inline" somewhere up on the rooftop mounted unit at the Ellsworth Wastewater Treatment Plant (where Richie now works), and wasn't inside on the rather retro looking display console.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
The discussion of barometer height gets no attention in the CWOP metadata, just as one example. There is mention of the station's location, often simply referred to as the station's elevation. The presumption is that the elevation is at grade. The CWOP Guide (https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/CWOP_Guide.pdf), v1.0 20050308, D. Helms, isn't all that fussy in obtaining an elevation, and nothing is ever said in particular regard to the barometric sensor.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
and reading a little further...
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
If you own a personal weather and happen to live within a 12-mile radius of Ellsworth, I'll be happy to provide you with a surveyed benchmark.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]