FASTEX Central Archive Buoy Quality Controls


BUOYS Surface in-situ data: data set description page

  1. Overview
  2. Taking into account the fact that a part of the dataset was already validated by the Météo-France/Centre de Météorologie Marine (CMM), and to offer to the FCA users a dataset completely validated, the FCA decided to improve the real time quality control processing for data not concerned by the CMM validation.

    This includes:

  3. a visual examination of the temporal evolution of all the available parameters for each buoy
  4. gross limit checks (pressure),
  5. temporal and/or spatial consistency (pressure).

  6. Data checking
  7. Foreword: to improve the validation of the buoys surface measurements data set, the FCA used several 'limit values' which have two aims:
  8. to improve the real time gross limit checks by using limits more accurate for the domain of interest (in space and time)
  9. to find and examine not only bad values but also suspect values: these limits are not used as 'limits that can't be passed', but are defined as values such as most of the values above (or below, according to the case) appear as being suspect, and so need a closer examination.
    1. Data uniqueness:
    2. For a few buoys, data came both from GPC (Argos Global Processing Centres : Toulouse and Landover) and LUT (ground stations named 'Local User Terminals'). For each of these buoys, the data set coming from the LUT was compared to the GPC data set, and the redundancy of the LUT one allowed to removed it (only data coming from the GPC were keeped).

    3. Visual examination
    4. For each buoy, the temporal evolution of available parameters was plotted and visually examined. It allowed to show:
    5. unrealistic peaks in latitude, longitude and pressure; these data were set to 'bad'
    6. buoys ashore: sst data were removed and the documentation updated
    7. Gross limit checks
    8. After several attemps to improve 'limit values' for the domain of interest, it appeared that real time gross limits could be improved only for pressure (severe weather conditions are frequent for some buoys according to their positions, more frequent than, for example, for ships - which try to avoid them; following that, the range of values is quite wide).
      For each doubtful pressure observation (below 940 or above 1040), data were visually examined and compared to neighbouring observations (in space and time). If a problem appeared, the wrong value was flagged; some of them were corrected, see the data correction section for more details.

    9. Controls on pressure
    10. Each pressure measurement was compared to 'neighbouring' observations from ships or buoys (i.e. a 500 km square over a 12 hour interval, centered on the point which is controlled; this area might be extended when a few observations are available, or reduced for a great number of observations). When the difference between the pressure value and the average of the neighbouring observations was greater than a value set to 12hPa, data were checked with the use, in some cases, of the sea level pressure field from the ARPEGE analysis.

      After that, for each buoy, the temporal evolution of pressure was compared to limit values depending on the time between the two measurements;

      temporal interval limit on pressure tendency limit on temperature tendency
      less than 1 hour4 hPa4 degrees C
      1 hour6 hPa6 degrees C
      3 hours13 hPa8 degrees C
      6 hours20 hPa12 degrees C
      12 hours30 hPa15 degrees C
      24 hours40 hPa18 degrees C

      A third check was also applied, using the pressure tendency. When, for a buoy, the time between two pressure observations was equal to 3hours, and when the pressure tendency was available (allowing the computation of the first pressure using the second pressure and the tendency), the difference between the first value (from the message) and the calculated value was computed. If the difference was greater than 3hPa per 6 hours, pressure was visually checked.

    11. Controls on temperature
    12. For each buoy, the temporal evolution of the temperature was calculated and compared to the limit values given in the previous table. But this control didn't allow to flag data as being 'bad'.

  10. Data correction
    1. Pressure data
    2. In the following cases, and only in these cases and when the error is obvious, the decision was taken to correct pressure values:

      controls used to show up errors parameters used to correct data
      • peaks in the pressure temporal evolution and/or
      • gross limit checks and/or
      • comparison with neighbouring observations and/or
      • temporal evolution of pressure for this buoy and/or
      • use of the buoy pressure tendency and/or
      • comparison with the closer sea surface pressure map (over Atlantic)
      • neighbouring pressures from other buoys or ships when available
      • and previous/next pressure values of the same buoy (if not too far)
      • and pressure tendency when available

    3. Flagging/correcting data
    4. When a correction is made, the corresponding flag is set to 8 (corrected value).
      When the correction is not obvious, but the value obviously suspect or bad, flags were used to improve the data qualification (set to 6 or 7).

  11. Summary
  12. The following table sums up the percentage (number between brackets) of suspect, bad and corrected data using all the checkings described here above for data not controlled by the CMM:

    Parameter data flagged as suspect or bad data flagged as corrected
    location 8.22% (5574) 0
    pressure 7.52% (3074) 0.03% (12)
    temperature11.57% (1918) 0
    wind speed 3.89% (63)0


Top of page

Updated: 8 February 1999