Hi all

This isn't a dig at anybody (at all) but I noticed the storm
presently buffeting Denmark produced some amazing results in published
measured windspeed.

These images were lifted from the Danish national weather service
website: DMI: Dansk Meteorological Institute.

The first image shows professional measurements while the second shows
amateur measurements.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2593/bvimagegw0.png

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/569...agehomedw0.png

Could it really be said that most of the amateur figures have any
scientific value whatsoever?

Or even any real value to the amateur weather watchers themselves?

It is certainly an area where the Danish amateur meteorologist could
and should seriously improve their performance.

Any constructive thoughts?

On 18 Mar, 20:27, "Chris.Bee" wrote:
Hi all

This isn't a dig at anybody (at all) but I noticed the storm
presently buffeting Denmark produced some amazing results in published
measured windspeed.

These images were lifted from the Danish national weather service
website: DMI: Dansk Meteorological Institute.

The first image shows professional measurements while the second shows
amateur measurements.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2593/bvimagegw0.png

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/569...agehomedw0.png

Could it really be said that most of the amateur figures have any
scientific value whatsoever?

Or even any real value to the amateur weather watchers themselves?

It is certainly an area where the Danish amateur meteorologist could
and should seriously improve their performance.

Any constructive thoughts?

If you stick an anemometer on top of a 10m pole, it doesn't become
more accurate because the results are read by a professional.

It's really a matter of ignoring results from seriously non standard
equipment, and those where highly questionable adjustments have been
applied.

(Quality control on 'professional' sites is often far from perfect!)

Graham
Penzance.

are they not from diff sites though?

ie it would be a decent comparison if the sites were both pro and amatuer in
the same location.

brian
aberfeldy


"Chris.Bee" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi all

This isn't a dig at anybody (at all) but I noticed the storm
presently buffeting Denmark produced some amazing results in published
measured windspeed.

These images were lifted from the Danish national weather service
website: DMI: Dansk Meteorological Institute.

The first image shows professional measurements while the second shows
amateur measurements.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2593/bvimagegw0.png

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/569...agehomedw0.png

Could it really be said that most of the amateur figures have any
scientific value whatsoever?

Or even any real value to the amateur weather watchers themselves?

It is certainly an area where the Danish amateur meteorologist could
and should seriously improve their performance.

Any constructive thoughts?

Note Surface Temp. (3) - shows a disclaimer is important.

http://www.trafficweather.info/roadW....jsp?client=81

Station : Foyle Bridge
Organisation : The Meteorological Office - Northern Ireland


Time : 19.03.2007 12:00 GMT

Relative Humidity (1) 78 %

Rain State (1) none

Wind Speed (1) 11.3 m/s

Surface Temp (2) 6.8 °C

Surface Temp (3) 322.8 °C

Disclaimer - neither Vaisala or the owner of the data accept
responsibility for the accuracy or interpretation of the data





On Mar 19, 8:56 am, "Brian Blair"
wrote:
are they not from diff sites though?

ie it would be a decent comparison if the sites were both pro and amatuer in
the same location.

brian
aberfeldy

"Chris.Bee" wrote in message

oups.com...



Hi all

This isn't a dig at anybody (at all) but I noticed the storm
presently buffeting Denmark produced some amazing results in published
measured windspeed.

These images were lifted from the Danish national weather service
website: DMI: Dansk Meteorological Institute.

The first image shows professional measurements while the second shows
amateur measurements.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2593/bvimagegw0.png

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/569...agehomedw0.png

Could it really be said that most of the amateur figures have any
scientific value whatsoever?

Or even any real value to the amateur weather watchers themselves?

It is certainly an area where the Danish amateur meteorologist could
and should seriously improve their performance.

Any constructive thoughts?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 19 Mar., 09:56, "Brian Blair" wrote:
are they not from diff sites though?

ie it would be a decent comparison if the sites were both pro and amateur in
the same location.

brian
aberfeldy

Indeed they are all from different sites. But given a strong Westerly
gale covering most of Denmark I considered it a good moment to make
some rather obvious comparisons. The point I am trying to make is that
if one is to be taken seriously as an amateur meteorologist one should
at least attend to the obvious. The online software updating systems
and inexpensive weather stations have given the amateur a chance to
contribute.(within the limitations of their equipment) That chance
would seem to have been missed in many cases. Rainwater gauges
deliberately fixed under the eaves of one's bungalow and wind
measurement devices a couple of feet from the ground surrounded in
bushes are just a couple of examples which I have read about
online.These obvious flaws were openly admitted to by the website
owner! I am not criticising anybody here but if you choose to publish
your weather data online then do at least make an effort. Or all
amateur observers will always get tarred with the same brush. If you
nearest professional station is saying 24 m/s Westerly you really have
got to be kidding by publishing a 3 m/s Easterly reading online. :-)

On Mar 19, 12:25 pm, "Chris.Bee" wrote:
On 19 Mar., 09:56, "Brian Blair" wrote:

are they not from diff sites though?

ie it would be a decent comparison if the sites were both pro and amateur in
the same location.

brian
aberfeldy

Indeed they are all from different sites. But given a strong Westerly
gale covering most of Denmark I considered it a good moment to make
some rather obvious comparisons. The point I am trying to make is that
if one is to be taken seriously as an amateur meteorologist one should
at least attend to the obvious. The online software updating systems
and inexpensive weather stations have given the amateur a chance to
contribute.(within the limitations of their equipment) That chance
would seem to have been missed in many cases. Rainwater gauges
deliberately fixed under the eaves of one's bungalow and wind
measurement devices a couple of feet from the ground surrounded in
bushes are just a couple of examples which I have read about
online.These obvious flaws were openly admitted to by the website
owner! I am not criticising anybody here but if you choose to publish
your weather data online then do at least make an effort. Or all
amateur observers will always get tarred with the same brush. If you
nearest professional station is saying 24 m/s Westerly you really have
got to be kidding by publishing a 3 m/s Easterly reading online. :-)

I agree with all that. It seems that many observers have
fallen in love with their gadget without knowing how to use it or
being able to evaluate the significance of what it shows. A further
gadget, of course, enables them to publish their findings wordwide. I
have never tried to measure wind speed, not having a 10-m pole in the
middle of a field. A Beaufort estimate is quite enough, anything
more being too much information, nearly all of it useless. It all
rather reminds me of kids' mobile phone calls, i.e. bereft of real
content but it's a nice toy.

Tudor Hughes

On 19 Mar 2007 07:06:15 -0700, "Tudor Hughes" wrote:

I agree with all that. It seems that many observers have
fallen in love with their gadget without knowing how to use it or
being able to evaluate the significance of what it shows. A further
gadget, of course, enables them to publish their findings wordwide. I
have never tried to measure wind speed, not having a 10-m pole in the
middle of a field. A Beaufort estimate is quite enough, anything
more being too much information, nearly all of it useless. It all
rather reminds me of kids' mobile phone calls, i.e. bereft of real
content but it's a nice toy.

I think I'm going to cry...

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

On 18 Mar, 20:41, "Graham Easterling"
wrote:


If you stick an anemometer on top of a 10m pole, it doesn't become
more accurate because the results are read by a professional.



That is a very amateur response.

A professional would not just "stick an anemometer on top of a 10m
pole".

You have a lot to learn, my friend.

The point I am trying to make is that
if one is to be taken seriously as an amateur meteorologist one should
at least attend to the obvious. The online software updating systems
and inexpensive weather stations have given the amateur a chance to
contribute.(within the limitations of their equipment) That chance
would seem to have been missed in many cases. Rainwater gauges
deliberately fixed under the eaves of one's bungalow and wind
measurement devices a couple of feet from the ground surrounded in
bushes are just a couple of examples which I have read about
online.These obvious flaws were openly admitted to by the website
owner! I am not criticising anybody here but if you choose to publish
your weather data online then do at least make an effort. Or all
amateur observers will always get tarred with the same brush. If you
nearest professional station is saying 24 m/s Westerly you really have
got to be kidding by publishing a 3 m/s Easterly reading online. :-)

Fair enough.

The position of my equipment can be seen at www.easterling.freeserve.co.uk/weather.html
(Any excuse for a plug!)

The anemometer is on a 10m pole (though not being in the middle of a
field may not satisfy Tudor!) The results do compare well with several
other places nearby (Camborne, Culdrose, Penzance Heliport etc.)
During 1992-1999 my rainfall was 99.5% of that recorded by EA at Drift
(2 miles away - same alt.

My pet hate is when people record data & then make some adustment.
Much better to report it as is & point out the limitations.

Graham
From a very windy Penzance

www.easterling.freeserve.co.uk/
www.pznow.co.uk/index.htm

In message .com,
Chris.Bee writes
Hi all

This isn't a dig at anybody (at all) but I noticed the storm
presently buffeting Denmark produced some amazing results in published
measured windspeed.

These images were lifted from the Danish national weather service
website: DMI: Dansk Meteorological Institute.

The first image shows professional measurements while the second shows
amateur measurements.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2593/bvimagegw0.png

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/569...agehomedw0.png

Could it really be said that most of the amateur figures have any
scientific value whatsoever?

Or even any real value to the amateur weather watchers themselves?

It is certainly an area where the Danish amateur meteorologist could
and should seriously improve their performance.

Any constructive thoughts?

Chris I live 1NM from RAF Cottesmore where I was S.Met.O yonks back
-their readings should be pretty good as the damn mast (I have climbed
up it too many times) is 10M above ground which is at 430FT.

I now live 400FT up in a nearby village (400FT) and have managed to get
my (VP2) anemo up to 30FT above ground level. Exposure is everything,
mine ain't bad but there are houses at the same level around me.
Results show me to be under recording by about 8% mean and 15% on gusts.

Not really much I can do about it except accept the error.

Temperature comparisons good.

HTH

Cheers
Paul
--
'Wisest are they that know they do not know.' Socrates.
Paul Bartlett FRMetS
www.rutnet.co.uk Go to local weather.
400FT AMSL 25Miles southwest of the Wash