On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:11:28 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

Basically you extract what you can from the WOW data but
giving it low weight compared to SYNOPS etc but it will still add
value. I did a study many years ago where it was concluded that for
fog observing what was needed was not just well-sited obs but loads
of obs, even if they were poorly sited or just plain wrong.

That takes me back fifty years when Freddie Inman of Met O 1 was
arguing strongly that no observations could be useful for compiling
records of fog. Sounds weird but in was when weather reports from ships'
log-books were being digitised. Freddie insisted that when a ship had
entered the region of the Grand Banks, say, and no observations were
entered in the book because of "navigational duties", then these null
reports should be recorded as observations of fog, particularly if the
last observation had recorded fog or adjacent fog. This didn't go down
too well with the powers-that-be but I think he got his way in the end.
If he hadn't, frequency of fog at sea would have been severely
under-reported in the records.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/