<p>Many meteorological stations are assimilated into NOAA's reanalysis. You should be careful with this approach as the raw data you have might have been already included in the hindcast.</p>

<p>The reanalysis includes the data in an statistical way. In general, the reanalysis does not match the data at any point, but tries to minimize the global difference between observations and model simulation. There is no guarantee that the reanalysis is going to be close to any of the assimilated data.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-10T17:59:48.853Z
Thanks, if this stations and many others are assimilated in to the reanalysis does it not mean it will be easy to find outlires and bad data?
eliavs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-10T18:02:53.637Z
The reanalysis algorithm takes care of outliers and bad data.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-10T18:41:45.237Z
thats my point! so if i have raw data from one single station is it wrong to "clean" the data against the  reanalysis
eliavs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-11T08:42:12.627Z
I think the point that aretxabaleta is making is that if the station that you have data from was included in the reanalysis, then finding that the two sets of data match well does not necessarily tell you much about the station's data quality - because to some degree, you have compared the station's measurements with themselves.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-11T17:22:58.483Z
@SimonW: That was exactly my point. Thanks for the clarification.
arkaia
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-10T15:54:25.830Z
2014-06-10T20:37:36.550Z
2014-06-10T20:37:36.550Z
arkaia
<p>Official meteorological stations should have well-calibrated thermometers.
In any comparison between models and measurements, the measurements would be the reference, not the models.</p>

<p>One way I can see to validate ground-based in-situ temperature measurements is by carrying an <a href="http://www.l-a-b.com/content/measurement-traceability" rel="nofollow">SI-traceable</a> thermometer to all the sites.
Unfortunately, you cannot do this retroactively.
I don't know to what degree thermometers at official meteorological stations are SI-traceable.</p>

<p>Another way would be to look at spatio-temporal series, and search for outliers that way.  This would not be a comparison between different independent methods, but would reject a particular measurement if it is too far off compared to measurements nearby in space and time.  To find the right criteria to reject data is a delicate balance, and you will certainly end up either rejecting good data or accepting bad data.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-10T16:55:14.393Z
2014-06-10T18:04:39.707Z
2014-06-10T18:04:39.707Z
gerrit
<p>No. One should not attempt to validate raw in situ measurements with reanalysis data. Reanalysis data contain partial information from observations, but are mostly model fields and are provided at very coarse resolution (~1$^\circ$ longitude). In situ measurements are subject to very local, small scale effects, and have different meaning from reanalysis. One is always free to compare the two datasets, but this would not be validation in any meaningful way.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-10T19:33:04.167Z
2014-06-10T19:33:04.167Z
milancurcic
<p>For a project I am working on I received raw data from many meteorology stationes.<br>
Is it right practice to test this data against air temperature from noaa's <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html">ncep/ncar data</a>?<br></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-17T02:32:52.797Z
What do you mean "test"? I think it can be useful to compare these sources as a sanity check.
Abe
<meteorology><temperature><database><validation>
Is it right practice to validate temperature data with reanalysis data?
eliavs
# Is it right practice to validate temperature data with reanalysis data?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-10)

For a project I am working on I received raw data from many meteorology stationes.  
Is it right practice to test this data against air temperature from noaa's [ncep/ncar data](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html)?

**Tags:** meteorology, temperature, database, validation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What do you mean "test"? I think it can be useful to compare these sources as a sanity check.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-06-10. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

No. One should not attempt to validate raw in situ measurements with reanalysis data. Reanalysis data contain partial information from observations, but are mostly model fields and are provided at very coarse resolution (~1$^\circ$ longitude). In situ measurements are subject to very local, small scale effects, and have different meaning from reanalysis. One is always free to compare the two datasets, but this would not be validation in any meaningful way.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-06-10. Score: 8

Many meteorological stations are assimilated into NOAA's reanalysis. You should be careful with this approach as the raw data you have might have been already included in the hindcast.

The reanalysis includes the data in an statistical way. In general, the reanalysis does not match the data at any point, but tries to minimize the global difference between observations and model simulation. There is no guarantee that the reanalysis is going to be close to any of the assimilated data.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, if this stations and many others are assimilated in to the reanalysis does it not mean it will be easy to find outlires and bad data?  
> **username_3**: The reanalysis algorithm takes care of outliers and bad data.  
> **username_0**: thats my point! so if i have raw data from one single station is it wrong to "clean" the data against the  reanalysis  
> **username_4**: I think the point that aretxabaleta is making is that if the station that you have data from was included in the reanalysis, then finding that the two sets of data match well does not necessarily tell you much about the station's data quality - because to some degree, you have compared the station's measurements with themselves.  
> **username_2**: @SimonW: That was exactly my point. Thanks for the clarification.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-06-10. Score: 3

Official meteorological stations should have well-calibrated thermometers.
In any comparison between models and measurements, the measurements would be the reference, not the models.

One way I can see to validate ground-based in-situ temperature measurements is by carrying an [SI-traceable](http://www.l-a-b.com/content/measurement-traceability) thermometer to all the sites.
Unfortunately, you cannot do this retroactively.
I don't know to what degree thermometers at official meteorological stations are SI-traceable.

Another way would be to look at spatio-temporal series, and search for outliers that way. This would not be a comparison between different independent methods, but would reject a particular measurement if it is too far off compared to measurements nearby in space and time. To find the right criteria to reject data is a delicate balance, and you will certainly end up either rejecting good data or accepting bad data.


---

