Doing so inherently demands a broad understanding of the character of the target mesoscale environment and the ability to identify sites whose representativeness is not unduly compromised by microscale influences. The intention thus is to place stations at locations that are broadly representative of the surrounding mesoscale environment. Regardless of the number of stations deployed to sample the near-surface environment across a mesonet, those stations cover only a minute subset of the potentially available monitoring locations. Once a handful of potential locations are identified, the next step is to identify an optimal location. Oftentimes for a meteorological network, the first challenge in siting a station is finding available land that is stable, secure, with appropriate access, with a willing landowner (be it private or public), with access to communications infrastructure (e.g., cellular telephone or radio coverage), and with access to power (i.e., if AC power is required World Meteorological Organization 1993). Standards defined by other science and engineering bodies were leveraged in developing our recommendations when it made sense to do so. The recommendations herein are intended to be operational guidelines rather than standards. Specific recommendations aim to improve and recognize quality and harmonize management strategies among mesonets in the United States.

The discussion focuses on siting, sensors, maintenance, quality assurance, and data processing. The objective of this paper is to discuss best practices for mesonets regarding functional practices and metadata reporting based on the needs of and supported by scientific research from the mesoscale weather and climate community. While we recognize other stakeholders of mesonet data, such as agriculture, energy, public safety, natural resource management, fire weather, and air quality, we focus here solely on the needs of the weather and climate community. We further recognize that an emphasis on data quality, reliability, and completeness is vital to a mesonet’s ability to effectively deliver services in near–real time and document climatic conditions over the long term. For the purposes of this paper, we define a mesonet as a network of automated, fixed, surface weather observing stations that 1) monitor environmental variables in the vertical domain between 10 m above and 1 m below ground surface (e.g., air temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, winds, solar radiation, atmospheric pressure, soil temperature, and soil moisture), 2) report data at a subhourly temporal resolution, and 3) have a spatial density on the order of one station per 1000 km 2 (average spacing of approximately 30 km). Increasingly, mesonets are developing new capacities to observe the environment (e.g., boundary layer profilers, unmanned aircraft systems, atmospheric chemistry sensors). The definition of a mesonet has evolved over the decades.

Guidance on metadata is based largely on the National Research Council (2009) report titled Observing Weather and Climate from the Ground Up: A Nationwide Network of Networks, as well as current practices of those mesonets that actively participate in the National Mesonet Program ( ). This paper stems from a best practices guide developed by these committees (available at ). mesonets and 2) identify best practices and develop guidelines for mesonets. Beginning in 2016, the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) Mesonet Committee formed subcommittees composed of mesonet operators with goals to 1) assess the current practices and capacity of U.S. As sensor and communications technologies evolve and the demand for weather and climate data to support decision-making grows, mesonets are expected to play an increasing role in support of weather and climate services.Ĭurrently, there exist inconsistent functional practices and metadata reporting among mesonets. While sharing commonalities, each network has unique strategic, design, and operational elements. These networks, commonly referred to as mesonets, have originated independently, are funded at various levels and through various mechanisms, and serve a variety of constituencies and needs. Over the past several decades, mesoscale networks of automated, in situ stations for weather monitoring have been developed and deployed across diverse regional settings ( Mahmood et al.

Kansas 24 hour rainfall totals