ISD data attributes.

[zxy1219]

No description provided.

[zxy1219]

Hi, why the rnoaa download different attributes from the ISD (Integrated Surface Database) from using the NOAA search tool or ftp?
For example, the rnoaa downloaded data don't include SLP which was introduced in the NOAA's metadata (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdohtml/3505doc.txt). In stead, they have the "air pressure".

Any one know the reason?

[sckott]

can you give an example request with an rnoaa function?

[zxy1219]

Yes. I use the isd(). Here is my code:

res<- isd(usaf="723630", wban="23047", year=2008, path = "...", overwrite = TRUE)

[sckott]

what version of R and rnoaa are you using?

[zxy1219]

I'm using R 3.2.4, The rnoaa package was installed 3 days ago. It is the 0.5.2?

[zxy1219]

I just found that most downloaded data have more than 24 observations per day. Is it not the hourly data?

[sckott]

hmm, looks like the slp data is there in the downloaded data, so I may need to edit the parsing code

[zxy1219]

Thanks. Just one little suggestion, can you name the attributes in the same way with NOAA's?
This link can provide reference:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdohtml/3505doc.txt

[sckott]

This is the document that matches the data downloaded by the isd() function ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/ish-format-document.pdf The document you link to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdohtml/3505doc.txt doesn't seem to match up - What is the context for the http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdohtml/3505doc.txt page? That is, what dataset is it supposed to describe?

[sckott]

e.g., your document states that he WBAN identifier is at positions 08-12, while the pdf I link to states it is positions 11-15

[zxy1219]

I think I figured it out. The data sample provided by NOAA is the "simplified" version, while rnoaa download the "advanced" version. Both of the two version could be extracted by using NOAA's "search tool".

Great thanks!

[sckott]

Okay. Which format do you prefer, the simple or advanced format?

[zxy1219]

We use the simple version in the past studies. The advanced version looks
fine since they can match with the simple version. Are you going to develop
a function to download the simple version?

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Scott Chamberlain <[email protected]

wrote:

Okay. Which format do you prefer, the simple or advanced format?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#142 (comment)

[sckott]

I wasn't planning to, but we could think about doing that. Are the simple version files avail. via FTP?

[sckott]

@zxy1219 any thoughts on my last comment?

[zxy1219]

The simple version will be helpful. But the advanced version is good enough for my current project. Thanks a lot.

[sckott]

Okay, i'll give the simple version a shot some time, but not a priority for now

[sckott]

opened issue for the simple data format, so it doesn't get forgotten here

[sckott]

closing this since we have #175 open