[Met_help] Using MET with fcst_lead >= 100 h

[John Halley Gotway]

John,

I looked back through the old MET-Help emails and couldn't find anything that would explain a problem of using fcst_lead >= 100 hours.  So I'm not aware of a problem with that.  I did find one email
related to this but I believe that was due to an incorrectly packed GRIB file, not a problem in MET itself.

However, there are some issues in WPP (WRF-PostProcessor) for accumulated precip when the forecast lead time extends beyond 255 hours.  The time value of 255+ overflows the single byte that's
allocated in the GRIB record to store that time info.  This is mostly an issue for accumulated precip since you have to store 2 times in the GRIB record - accumulation starting and ending times.  I'm
not sure of the status of this issue, but if you run across it, I can look into it more.

I'd say, proceed with trying to use MET to verify forecasts >= 100 hours.  And if you run into any problems, just let us know through met_help at ucar.edu.

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest retrieving the latest set of bug fixes for METv2.0 from:
http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/METv2.0/index.php

Hope that helps,
John Halley Gotway
johnhg at ucar.edu

John Henderson wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> When first I installed WRF-MET I believe I saw a discussion somewhere 
> about how to apply WRF-MET to forecasts that require a fcst_lead of at 
> least 100 h, however, I can't seem to find it now. Can you point me in 
> the right direction?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> John Henderson
> AER, Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Met_help mailing list
> Met_help at mailman.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/met_help