5.2. Data Quality Control & Processing Tasks

Routines and procedures for inspecting and processing observatory data will vary between observatories and institutes so there is no set method or list of tasks that precisely detail how quality control is to be managed. However, to meet the standards for definitive one-minute and one-second data as specified by INTERMAGNET, an observatory is best advised to adopt a routine of data inspection, inter-comparison, data cleaning and baseline estimation. By regularly performing these tasks, many data problems can be identified and rectified quickly, thus maintaining the quality of the near real-time data published by an observatory, but also the quality of the definitive data produced at the end of the year. Tasks, such as baseline fitting on a weekly or monthly basis, will simplify the production of definitive data as well as improve its quality. As a general guide, typical quality control tasks have been listed here according to how often they are performed.

5.2.1. Daily Data Quality Tasks

Most observatories will have a daily routine for assessing the performance of instruments and identifying any artificial signal in the recorded data. Tasks such as collecting data, applying instrument scale values, filtering to one-second/one-minute and plotting magnetograms are normally performed automatically, leaving the observer to:

  • Manually inspect magnetograms (and optionally power spectra) to identify both natural signal and artificial disturbance

  • Plot inter-comparisons between instruments

  • Plot inter-comparisons with data from nearby observatories

  • Perform cross-correlation between instruments to detect timing inconsistencies

  • Identify noise (steps, spikes, etc.) and correct by either flagging, filling or performing an interim baseline adjustment

  • Record observatory changes and events in the observatory diary

  • Transmit reported data within 72 hours of recording with approximate adopted baselines

  • Optionally transmit observatory indices

Instrument comparisons (both vector-vector comparisons and the vector-scalar comparisons described in Section 5.5 ) are a very useful quality control tool, particularly when all data are corrected to a common point i.e. the absolute pillar. In comparing two or more instruments, the observatory is operating a magnetic gradiometer that is very sensitive to instrument problems or changes in the measuring environment. In comparing three or more systems, it is often possible to detect problems and also identify the source of the problem. In a similar way, inter-comparisons with nearby observatories are a convenient way to detect localised problems, particularly over long time series.

Observatories are advised to maintain a detailed observatory diary, recording significant events and changes that may have an influence on data quality. Similarly, any manual changes to the data, such as removing spikes or filling data of one instrument from another, should be logged for future reference. Procedures for editing data vary between observatories, but it is considered good practice to preserve all original data in an unedited state, with edits applied either on a copy of the data or using a separate flagging system. Either way, maintaining an edit log and version control should allow information on data edits to be preserved and edits rolled back where required.

5.2.2. Weekly Data Quality Tasks

Observatories will have specific tasks associated with making and processing absolute observations and baseline modelling that are performed at least weekly. This is an opportune time to make a more accurate assessment of the applied baselines and to optionally transmit adjusted data with an improved level of data quality to the reported data. Weekly tasks typically include:

  • Performing absolute observations

  • Making a scalar site difference measurement between the scalar instrument and the absolute pillar

  • Reducing the absolute observations and the variometer data to observed baselines

  • Plotting and inspecting observed baselines, identifying and evaluating steps and drifts

  • Approximately modelling the adopted baseline for application to reported and adjusted data

  • Transmitting adjusted data with approximate adopted baselines (plus spikes removed and gaps filled) within 7 days of recording

5.2.3. Monthly Data Quality Tasks

It is also good practice to re-evaluate data after a period of time when there are a number of observed baselines available before and after that data point. This allows for a more accurate adopted baseline to be calculated at a time when outlying observations can more easily be identified and removed and when there is a clearer view of instrument drifts or steps. If this process is performed within three months of the data being recorded, then these improvements to baselines (and therefore the resulting data) may be sufficient to re-submit the data to INTERMAGNET as quasi-definitive as described in Section 5.6 .

An additional data quality task than can be a useful reference for definitive data processing is the production of monthly bulletins i.e. a catalogue daily magnetograms plus a record of the approximate baselines adopted at that time. Monthly bulletins can also be used to log information that is of use to annual definitive data processing such as significant observatory events and natural signal identified in the data during the month.

5.2.4. Annual Data Quality Tasks

Following the end of each calendar year, observatories are required to finalise baselines and produce a definitive data set to submit to INTERMAGNET, including observatory metadata and derived data products (such as hourly, daily, annual means and optionally K-indices). This process is typically scheduled at least a month into the following year to allow baselines to be finalised with sufficient absolute observations after the year boundary. If routine tasks such as data cleaning and continuous baseline adoption have been maintained throughout the year, then producing a definitive data set can be relatively straight forward. Observatories may also consider publishing data to an observatory yearbook as this provides an opportunity to preserve additional metadata to those required by INTERMAGNET. The process for submitting data to INTERMAGNET (definitive or otherwise) is described in Chapter 6 .

5.2.5. Despiking and Removal of Artificially Disturbed Data

Single data points that are further away from the true signal than the typical noise of the time series are referred to as spikes. In the variometer data, their origin are typically analogue signals that are short compared to the sampling rate, e.g. voltages in cables or magnetic fields arising from lightning strikes) or a single error in the analogue-digital conversion in the ADC, or single errors arising in the transmission of digital data. Spikes are best identified and removed from the original spot readings, in any subsequently filtered time series (like minute means) they are smoothed and hence difficult to identify, but still lead to degradation of the data. Spikes can also occur in absolute scalar magnetometer (e.g. proton magnetometers) data.

Spikes with an offset from the signal that significantly exceeds the maximum natural variation between two consecutive data points can be easily identified by computer algorithms and automatically removed from the spot-reading time series. For example, a change of say 100 nT per second will not be reached by natural geomagnetic field variations and consequently, an algorithm that removes data points that are more than 100 nT away from the previous and consecutive data point can safely be used.

Other short-term artificial disturbances in the data could arise from magnetic objects passing by the magnetometer sensors or from interference of the magnetometer with radio wave or voltage variations in the power supply. Typical problems of the first type occur if cars get too close to an observatory or the grass is cut around a magnetometer hut, or if a magnetometer hut is entered with magnetic objects.

When two magnetometers are operated in an observatory, such spikes usually don’t occur simultaneously. Also, moving magnetic objects usually affect the magnetometers differently because of the differences in distance and/or direction they are with respect to the two magnetometers. Therefore, spikes and disturbances can best be recognized by looking at the difference between these two magnetometers, as this will eliminate the natural geomagnetic field variations that are identical at both magnetometers, but not the signal from moving moving magnetic objects. For two scalar magnetometers, calculating the total field difference is simple. For a vector and a scalar magnetometer, the total field difference between the two magnetometers can be calculated (see Section 5.5 computation of total field differences) or between two scalar magnetometers. For two vector magnetometers, one can calculate the difference between the individual components (but note that the sensor orientation might not be identical for the two variometers).

Another good way to facilitate the visual identification of spikes and other short term artificial disturbances, especially in the absence of a second magnetometer, is to plot the first difference of a time series (e.g. a component of the variometer, or total field). This acts like a high-pass filter and the slow natural field changes give almost no signal in the first difference. Spikes appear always and artificial disturbances appear often prominently due to their high rate of field change. Such first differences can be compared with first differences from observatories many hundreds or thousands of kilometers away. The time derivative of natural signals appears often as very similar (though not identical) over large areas. Thus, spikes and short term artificial signals (appearing only at one station) can be distinguished from natural signals (appearing at neighboring stations).

Once a spike or artificially disturbed data is identified, it should not be used for calculating calibrated data. Often, such corrupted data was deleted and thus removed from the archive. A more modern approach would be to keep the corrupted raw data in the archive and to flag it such that it is replaced by data from a back-up system or flag it such that it is not used for the calculation of calibrated data (possibly leading to a data gap).

5.2.6. Absolute Quality Control

Absolute measurement (often also referred to as ‘absolutes’) quality is important for geomagnetic observatories. Typical reasons for low quality absolutes are instrument malfunction, errors by the observer (e.g. misreading, typos, insufficient levelling, and issues with magnetic cleanliness), timing errors, and errors in the software used for calculating results. Here we look especially at the declination and inclination absolute measurements with a fluxgate theodolite (DI-flux).

One way to judge the quality of the absolute measurements is to look at the scatter of the baselines determined from them. This is very helpful, but the baselines always depend on the quality of the absolutes and the quality of the variometer, therefore it is desirable to have quality parameters that are (as much as possible) independent from the variometer quality.

If an erroneous absolute measurement occurs in a series of correct absolutes, it can be identified firstly by an erroneous value in the baseline. Secondly, it often can be identified by erroneous fluxgate parameters, these are sensor offset and sensor alignment with the theodolite telescope. More information on these is given in Jankowski and Sucksdorff (1996) [1], but note the sign error identified by Matzka and Hansen (2007) [2]. The fluxgate parameter are largely independent of the variometer data and are very sensitive to single misreading or typos. Also, they are indicative for mechanical or magnetic faults of the DI-fluxgate.

To identify operator problems, you can compare the absolutes from different observers. To identify instrument problems, one can test the instrument against other absolute instruments, like done at IAGA workshops or more regional instrument comparisons.

Finally, erroneous absolutes should not be reported to INTERMAGNET and should not be used for the baseline adoption.