|
In our summary of the tutorial, we ask you to respond to questions related
to each of the seven topics discussed. You are not being graded on your
responses. The intent is to give you an opportunity to review the important
points of the lesson, contemplate the information you have hopefully learned,
and apply the concepts in real-world situations. The correct responses
to some of the questions may include multiple choices.
Adherence to standards: Adherence to
standards is important because it:
 |
Helps create a level the playing field for the measurement
and resulting comparability of data and increases data quality. |
 |
Increases unrepresentativeness of data. |
 |
Guarantees the collection of accurate data. |
Metadata: Select the responses you
believe should be entered into station metadata.
 |
temperature sensor replaced with another of same manufacturer's
equipment |
 |
temperature sensor replaced with different manufacturer's
unit |
 |
removed tree limb overhanging precipitation gauge |
 |
observer began using snow measurement board for first
time |
 |
changes in land use occurring within 200 feet of station |
 |
observer changed snowfall measurement frequency from
once daily to 4 times a day |
REMEMBER: Document any event that
you believe may enter a discontinuity into the climate record. This includes
changes in the way measurements are made and recorded, and changes in
the local physical environment. Err on the side of over-documentation.
Coordinate with our climate services partners on issues.
Instrumentation
Select the responses below that you believe are TRUE regarding published
climate stations:
 |
In the interest of having some climate data versus no
climate data, we should install any available equipment we can find. |
 |
Installation of unapproved instrumentation is acceptable
as long as its kept secret and out of the metadata so NCDC and other
data users don't know about it. |
 |
Data continuity and related minimal instrumentation
changes is of special consideration at Historical Climate Network
(HCN) stations. |
 |
Off-the-shelf unapproved instrumentation can be assumed
to be as accurate and reliable as the manufacturer's advertised capabilities. |
Station and Instrument Exposure
This factor is one of the most important as it can contribute a great
deal of uncertainty to the climate record and we can exert considerable
influence to minimize the impacts. Look at the picture below and select
the responses that you believe best fit the situation:
|
|
 |
This temperature sensor is situated in a spot that will
likely provide high quality readings representative of the surrounding
environment. |
 |
The equipment is situated fine as it was put it here
or nowhere. |
 |
I know being close to buildings can reduce the diurnal
temperature range and that heat exchangers can artificially affect
the readings but who cares? A couple of degrees error doesn't really
hurt anything. |
 |
The instrument is grossly non-standard in exposure and
should be relocated farther away from the building and air exchanger
or closed down. |
REMEMBER: Also, understand
and respect the fact that topographic setting can be much more important
in determining whether a relocated station keeps the same name (has climate
continuity with the previous site) or gets a new name (begins a new climate
record) than the 5 horizontal mile/100 vertical feet rule. And when in
doubt or just needing input on exposure issues, coordinate with our climate
community partners.
Changing Environments
Changing environments are a fact of life that are difficult to totally
avoid. In many cases, the best we can do is fully document any conditions
in the local vicinity of the station which can introduce discontinuities
into the climate record. This is best accomplished through keeping accurate
and complete metadata.
When non-compliant situations are extreme, either correct the situation
or consider closing the station down. Take digital photographs with each
scheduled preventative maintenance visit per guidelines or as needed when
change is apparent. And of course, don't forget to coordinate issues with
our climate community partners. They are ready and willing to assist with
their climate expertise.
Observing Practices
Although the method in which we take environmental measurements may change
over time to reflect changes in technology and needs, these changes, if
not documented can seriously affect the accurate interpretation of data
and derived products.
Snowfall measurements provide an excellent example. Consider an observer
who, during a snowstorm, places 3 snow measurement boards side-by-side
in his backyard. On board A, she takes a measurement of how much snow
fell each hour, followed by sweeping the surface clean for the next measurement.
On board B, she follows the same procedure , but measures the snowfall
depth every six hours. On board C, the same as boards A and B but takes
the measurement only once in 24 hours before cleaning the board.
Which snowfall measurement is the correct value to report? Without measurement
frequency standards, even though each procedure and board results in a
different amount, all three would be valid. However, since we do have
a standard, which allows for up to four measurements no closer than 6
hours apart or optionally, once per 24-hours, either boards B or C are
correct.
The morale of the story is that for comparability's sake, and continuity
in time and between stations, we must all adhere to standards of measurement
to assure the highest quality data possible. And when the methodology
changes, the date and procedural changes must be documented in the metadata
if data users are to be able to accurately assess climate trends and variability.
|