Dear colleagues,
We fully understand that Timeliness monitoring in WDQMS is still in its initial phase. As we have recently started working more intensively with this monitoring category, a number of questions and observations have naturally arisen during our analysis. At this stage, our intention is primarily to learn, gain a better understanding of the underlying concepts and implementation details, and exchange experience with colleagues, rather than to raise formal issues.
With this in mind, RWC Sarajevo would like to share several discussion points related to the interpretation and practical use of Timeliness information in WDQMS.
1. Period definition and data download
- When can we expect the implementation of a monthly “Type of period” for Timeliness?
- For practical analysis purposes, would it be possible for downloaded Timeliness data to be provided directly in minutes rather than seconds, since the legend and thresholds are defined in minutes?
2. Centres included in Timeliness monitoring
- Currently, Timeliness is available only for DWD and ECMWF.
- Given that this analysis concerns RA VI, is there any plan to extend Timeliness monitoring to JMA and NCEP, or is the restriction to regional reference centres intentional?
3. Timeliness thresholds and category boundaries
To avoid overlapping category boundaries, we would like to propose a clearer definition of thresholds:
- Blue: 0–14:59
- Purple: 15:00–29:59
- Pink: 30:00–119:59
- Burgundy: ≥120:00
This would be consistent with the current definition of “less than 15 minutes” for the blue category.
4. Lack of Timeliness-related metadata in OSCAR
Currently, OSCAR does not provide metadata directly related to Timeliness.
- Would it be possible to include information such as a scheduled report time, indicating when reports are expected to be transmitted to NWP centres?
5. Documentation in WMO-No. 1224
In WMO-No. 1224 – Technical Guidelines for Regional WIGOS Centres on the WIGOS Data Quality Monitoring System, the concept of Timeliness appears to be described only briefly.
- We would welcome clarification or expansion of this section, particularly regarding interpretation, cut-off times, and the relationship to NWP usage.
6. Interpretation of N/A values
We assume that N/A values in Timeliness often indicate that data were received, but too late to be useful for NWP purposes.
- Is there a clearly defined upper cut-off time for Timeliness?
- Is there a maximum delay (e.g. +6 hours) after which SYNOP data are no longer considered?
- How is the distinction made between “not received” and “received but too late”?
7. Observed national and centre-specific patterns
Based on our analysis:
- Stations in ALB are almost entirely blue,
- BGR stations are blue except for Musala,
- TUR shows approximately 45% blue and 55% purple.
This suggests that reporting configuration (e.g. hourly vs. 10-minute transmission) has a direct impact on Timeliness performance.
Across all analysed countries and all surface land variables (pressure, temperature, humidity, and both wind components), we observe very similar and clearly clustered Timeliness patterns.
We also note systematic delays at ECMWF (up to approximately 50 minutes), while the same data typically reach DWD within 7–11 minutes.
This leads to several learning-oriented questions:
- Does this imply that if data do not reach DWD within a short time window, they may still reach ECMWF later?
- In rare cases where data appear at neither centre, does this indicate a failure earlier in the data exchange chain?
- Is there a concept of a primary monitoring centre for Timeliness, or are centres treated independently?
8. Variable-level Timeliness differences
For the same station and the same day, it is sometimes observed that:
- pressure appears as purple,
- while humidity or meridional wind appear as blue.
This raises the question:
- Are all variables always transmitted within the same SYNOP message and processed simultaneously, or
- is Timeliness evaluated per variable due to different message sections, validation steps, or ingest pipelines?
9. Station–center association
We also observe that some stations consistently appear under ECMWF, while others appear under DWD, for example:
- in BGR, Kurdjali and Musala under ECMWF, while other stations appear under DWD;
- in ALB, Gjirokastër and Kukës under ECMWF, while most other stations appear under DWD.
Could this be related to:
- station representativeness,
- altitude or complexity (e.g. mountain stations),
- network design,
- or is it primarily driven by center-specific ingest configurations?
Our working assumption is that DWD functions as a high-volume ingest center, while ECMWF processes a more selective subset of stations, but clarification would be very welcome.
We would highly appreciate feedback, clarification, and shared experience from other regions and centres. As several questions are raised in this post, we fully understand that not all of them may be addressed within a single discussion. We are therefore open to continuing the exchange here or, where more focused discussion is needed, to addressing specific topics in separate discussion threads.
We believe that such an exchange could support a common and clearer understanding of Timeliness monitoring at this stage.
Kind regards,
RWC Sarajevo