[Cosmic_announce] Re: Change to CDAAC processing proposed

[Doug Hunt]

Sean:

> just to be clear, when you say marked "bad" do you mean the
> QC flags in BUFR data field 13? I screen out data with these
> flags.

Right--BUFR data field 13, bit 1 is set to 1 (non-nominal 
quality) in the case I describe.  The 'percent confidence' (field 14) is 
also set to 0.

> In one to two weeks we'll be hitting the Christmas holidays
> here. Its not really a good time to make a change. Could
> you postpone it until January.

OK, fair enough--we can wait until January.

Regards,

   Doug

dhunt at ucar.edu
Software Engineer III
UCAR - COSMIC, Tel. (303) 497-2611

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Sean Healy wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Sean.
>
> Doug Hunt wrote:
>> Hi all:  We are planning to make a small change to CDAAC processing which 
>> should be invisible to weather centers, but we would like to notify you 
>> first.
>> 
>> Currently we do not create BUFR files (bfrPrf) for a certain class of bad 
>> profiles.  We are proposing to instead create these files, but mark them 
>> 'bad' in the bfrPrf file (the 'percent confidence' in the header set to 
>> zero).
>> 
>> This will allow us to study this class of 'bad' profiles and perhaps 
>> understand or even fix them.
>> 
>> This change should not affect any user who currently throws out bfrPrf, 
>> wetPrf or atmPrf files marked 'bad'.  Regardless of this change, weather 
>> centers should not use files marked 'bad'.
>> 
>> We plan on making this change in 1-2 weeks unless this proves to be a 
>> show-stopper for anyone.
>> 
>> Regards,
>>
>>   Doug Hunt
>> 
>> dhunt at ucar.edu
>> Software Engineer III
>> UCAR - COSMIC, Tel. (303) 497-2611
>