In order to evaluate the characteristics and application value of meteorological data compiled by China Meteorological Administration(CMA data), the significance of differences in climatic averages and interannual variances of 100 hPa and 500 hPa geopotential height fields in July and sea level pressure field in January among CMA data and NCEP/NCAR, ECMWF reanalysis data sets are checked by using statistical methods respectively, with the interannual variability and correlations of the area and intensity indices of main active centers of the atmosphere compared in January and July in the Northern Hemisphere. Results show that:1)The climatic mean values of ECMWF 100 hPa and 500 hPa geopotential fields in July are all evidently smaller than those of CMA data, with their long term mean values smaller than 1 660 and 588 dagpm respectively, so that the ECMWF data are not adequate to study the South Asian high and the subtropical high. 2)The CMA data, which are directly read from the single level isobaric charts, are closer to observations in situ and more suited to diagnoses of pressure systems on the single isobaric level. 3)The interannual variabilities of the Mongolia high and the Aleutian low in winter are more consistent than those of the South Asian high and the subtropical high in summer among the three data sets.