• Dee, D. P., G. Gaspari, C. Redder, L. Rukhovets, and A. Da Silva, 1999: Maximum-likelihood estimation of forecast and observation error covariance parameters. Part II: Applications. Mon. Wea. Rev.,127, 1835–1849.

  • Hall, C. D., J. Ashcroft, and J. D. Wright, 1991: The use of output from a numerical model to monitor the quality of marine surface observations. Meteor. Mag.,120, 137–149.

  • Hollingsworth, A., D. B. Shaw, P. Lönnberg, L. Illari, K. Arpe, and A. J. Simmons, 1986: Monitoring of observation and analysis quality by a data assimilation system. Mon. Wea. Rev.,114, 861–879.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Ingleby, N. B., 1992: The new Meteorological Office quality control system. Preprints, 12th Conf. on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 219–224.

  • ——, 1995: Assimilation of station level pressure and errors in station height. Wea. Forecasting,10, 172–182.

  • ——, 2001: The statistical structure of forecast errors and its representation in the Met. Office Global 3-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation Scheme. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,127, 209–232.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kent, E. C., P. K. Taylor, B. S. Truscott, and J. S. Hopkins, 1993: The Accuracy of Voluntary Observing Ships’ Meteorological Observations—Results of the VSOP-NA. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,10, 591–608.

  • ——, P. G. Challenor, and P. K. Taylor, 1999: A statistical determination of the random observational errors present in voluntary observing ships’ meteorological reports. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,16, 905–914.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Le Provost, C., 1991: Le niveau de la mer, un index fondamental pour l’océanographie et la climatologie (Sea level, a basic index for oceanography and climatology). La Météorologie,40, 3–12.

  • Lorenc, A. C., 1986: Analysis methods for numerical weather prediction. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,112, 1177–1194.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • ——, and O. Hammon, 1988: Objective quality control of observations using Bayesian methods—Theory, and a practical implementation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,114, 515–543.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Uppala, S., 1997: Observing System Performance in ERA. ECMWF Re-Analysis Project Report Series, Vol. 3, iv+261 pp.

  • van der Meulen, J. P., 1992: The WMO automatic digital barometer intercomparison. WMO Instruments and Observing Methods Rep. No. 46, iv+100 pp.

  • Wolter, K., 1997: Trimming problems and remedies in COADS. J. Climate,10, 1980–1997.

  • Woodruff, S. D., S. J. Lubker, K. Wolter, S. J. Worley, and J. D. Elms, 1993: Comprehensive Ocean–Atmosphere Data Set (COADS) Release 1a: 1980–92. Earth Syst. Monit.,4, 1, 4–8.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 111 111 73
PDF Downloads 4 4 0

Comments on “A Statistical Determination of the Random Observational Errors Present in Voluntary Observing Ships’ Meteorological Reports”

View More View Less
  • 1 Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, United Kingdom
© Get Permissions Rent on DeepDyve
Restricted access

Abstract

The accuracy achievable for surface ship pressure reports and the sources of error in them are discussed. In The Met Office numerical weather prediction (NWP) system the error is estimated as 1 hPa, whereas Kent et al. calculated a figure of about 2.3 hPa. There are a number of reasons for this discrepancy, but the main one is that quality control using short-range forecasts is much better at detecting gross errors in the reports than are climatological checks. Statistics from the Met Office NWP system are presented for comparison of pressure and other atmospheric variables. Other variables show much less discrepancy than pressure because, relative to observation error, they have a smaller climatological range. Both sets of statistics show larger air temperature errors at high latitudes/low temperatures.

Corresponding author address: Mr. N. Bruce Ingleby, the Met Office (NWP Div.), London Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SZ, United Kingdom.

Email: nbingleby@meto.gov.uk

Abstract

The accuracy achievable for surface ship pressure reports and the sources of error in them are discussed. In The Met Office numerical weather prediction (NWP) system the error is estimated as 1 hPa, whereas Kent et al. calculated a figure of about 2.3 hPa. There are a number of reasons for this discrepancy, but the main one is that quality control using short-range forecasts is much better at detecting gross errors in the reports than are climatological checks. Statistics from the Met Office NWP system are presented for comparison of pressure and other atmospheric variables. Other variables show much less discrepancy than pressure because, relative to observation error, they have a smaller climatological range. Both sets of statistics show larger air temperature errors at high latitudes/low temperatures.

Corresponding author address: Mr. N. Bruce Ingleby, the Met Office (NWP Div.), London Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SZ, United Kingdom.

Email: nbingleby@meto.gov.uk

Save