[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #40338] History for MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
RAL HelpDesk {for Paul Oldenburg}
met_help at ucar.edu
Wed Sep 1 14:41:05 MDT 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Please forgive me for asking yet another question about the comparison of
model and point observations using MET. WPP outputs a 3D field for soil
moisture/temperature corresponding to individual layers. However, these
layers all have the same grib code and level. When using madis data, is
there a way to compare 2,4,8,20,40 inch observations to specific model soil
layers? Should I just use the observation for the top layer, but will that
get compared to the model top layer?
Thanks,
Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #40338] MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
From: Paul Oldenburg
Time: Thu Aug 26 09:23:47 2010
Scott,
The answer to your question depends on the nature of your data. Can
you please send us some exemplary model data and
madis observation data? We'll analyze your situation and then be
better equipped to provide you with the best course of
action for verifying soil moisture and temp. If your data is too
large to attach to an email (>5MB), please upload it
to our FTP site using the following directions. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
ftp ftp.rap.ucar.edu
username = anonymous
password = "your email address"
cd incoming/irap/met_help/rabenhorst_data
put "your files"
Thanks,
Paul
RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> Wed Aug 25 12:08:30 2010: Request 40338 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
>
>
> Hello,
> Please forgive me for asking yet another question about the
comparison of
> model and point observations using MET. WPP outputs a 3D field for
soil
> moisture/temperature corresponding to individual layers. However,
these
> layers all have the same grib code and level. When using madis data,
is
> there a way to compare 2,4,8,20,40 inch observations to specific
model soil
> layers? Should I just use the observation for the top layer, but
will that
> get compared to the model top layer?
> Thanks,
> Scott
------------------------------------------------
Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
From: Scott Rabenhorst
Time: Wed Sep 01 08:39:09 2010
Hello,
Sorry for the delay in response. I was out for a few days. Picking up
where
we left off, I am still struggling trying to access the model fields
for
verification. Below are links to my files, in particular, I have
included
grib header dump of my model fields "ncl_dump.txt" for you to look at.
One
can clearly see the field specifications for PRMSL (grib:2, L102), VIS
(grb:20, L1), PWAT (grb:54, L0), PRATE (grb:59, L1), and WTMP (grb:80,
L1).
However, when I run point_stat I receive errors that it cannot find
the
requested fields. I tried specifying the field abreviation/LXXX, but
that
did not work. Then I tried surface level Z2 and Z10, but that did not
work
either. Could you please take a look and let me know what I am
specifying
incorrectly?
My syntax:
point_stat WRFPRS_d01.000.grb MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.nc
PointStatConfig -outdir .
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/ncl_dump.txt
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.ascii
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.nc
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/PointStatConfig
Figuring out how to process the above fields is a top priority right
now,
but after that, maybe we can return to the question regarding
different soil
layers. The following tar ball link has sever more observations files
from
madis for the same time, including examples of SOILT/M at various
depths. I
am not sure how to properly match a given observation to a specific
model
layer when grib code 85/144 L112 is the same for all 4 model soil
layers.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ALLSFC.tar.gz
I look forward to hearing your recommendation for MET verification of
the
above fields. Thanks in advance for your help and time.
Thanks,
Scott
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul Oldenburg} <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> The answer to your question depends on the nature of your data. Can
you
> please send us some exemplary model data and
> madis observation data? We'll analyze your situation and then be
better
> equipped to provide you with the best course of
> action for verifying soil moisture and temp. If your data is too
large to
> attach to an email (>5MB), please upload it
> to our FTP site using the following directions. Please let me know
if you
> have any questions.
>
> ftp ftp.rap.ucar.edu
> username = anonymous
> password = "your email address"
> cd incoming/irap/met_help/rabenhorst_data
> put "your files"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> > Wed Aug 25 12:08:30 2010: Request 40338 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> > Please forgive me for asking yet another question about the
comparison of
> > model and point observations using MET. WPP outputs a 3D field for
soil
> > moisture/temperature corresponding to individual layers. However,
these
> > layers all have the same grib code and level. When using madis
data, is
> > there a way to compare 2,4,8,20,40 inch observations to specific
model
> soil
> > layers? Should I just use the observation for the top layer, but
will
> that
> > get compared to the model top layer?
> > Thanks,
> > Scott
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #40338] MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
From: Paul Oldenburg
Time: Wed Sep 01 13:01:08 2010
Scott,
Thanks for sending us your data and configuration. We were able to
make adjustments to the fcst_field line of your
configuration file so that it matched pairs for all of the variables.
We use the wgrib utility to print out the
records, which are used it to extract variable and level information:
kpds5 - grib code (see
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table2.html)
kpds6 - level type (see
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table3.html)
pressure level - use PNNN or PNNN-NNN notation
vertical level - use ZNNN notation
other level type - use LNNN notation
kpds7 - level value in units given by kpds6
Consider some examples from your file WRFPRS_d01.000.grb:
$ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep VIS
180:5261376:d=06080200:VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
"VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config fcst_field
setting of VIS/Z0
$ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PRATE
1214:40155908:d=06080200:PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
"PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config fcst_field
setting of PRATE/Z0
For level types that are neither pressure levels nor vertical levels,
use the ZNNN notation:
$ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PWAT
1235:40309844:d=06080200:PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:atmos
col:anl:NAve=0
...
"PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config fcst_field
setting of PWAT/L0
Here is the revised fcst_field line from the point_stat config file
that you sent us:
fcst_field[] = [ "PRES/Z2", "PRMSL/Z0", "TMP/Z2", "VTMP/Z2", "DPT/Z2",
"VIS/Z0", "WIND/Z10", "UGRD/Z10", "VGRD/Z10",
"RH/Z2", "MIXR/Z2", "PWAT/L0", "PRATE/Z0", "WTMP/Z0" ];
We tested this new configuration setting and it yielded matched pairs,
except where the observation message type was
MSONET. MET does not currently have the capability to recognize the
MSONET message type for surface variables. We'll
talk to the scientists here to figure out how best handle MSONET
observations.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Paul
RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
>
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for the delay in response. I was out for a few days. Picking
up where
> we left off, I am still struggling trying to access the model fields
for
> verification. Below are links to my files, in particular, I have
included
> grib header dump of my model fields "ncl_dump.txt" for you to look
at. One
> can clearly see the field specifications for PRMSL (grib:2, L102),
VIS
> (grb:20, L1), PWAT (grb:54, L0), PRATE (grb:59, L1), and WTMP
(grb:80, L1).
> However, when I run point_stat I receive errors that it cannot find
the
> requested fields. I tried specifying the field abreviation/LXXX, but
that
> did not work. Then I tried surface level Z2 and Z10, but that did
not work
> either. Could you please take a look and let me know what I am
specifying
> incorrectly?
>
> My syntax:
> point_stat WRFPRS_d01.000.grb MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.nc
> PointStatConfig -outdir .
>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/ncl_dump.txt
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.ascii
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.nc
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/PointStatConfig
>
> Figuring out how to process the above fields is a top priority right
now,
> but after that, maybe we can return to the question regarding
different soil
> layers. The following tar ball link has sever more observations
files from
> madis for the same time, including examples of SOILT/M at various
depths. I
> am not sure how to properly match a given observation to a specific
model
> layer when grib code 85/144 L112 is the same for all 4 model soil
layers.
>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ALLSFC.tar.gz
>
> I look forward to hearing your recommendation for MET verification
of the
> above fields. Thanks in advance for your help and time.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul Oldenburg}
<
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Scott,
>>
>> The answer to your question depends on the nature of your data.
Can you
>> please send us some exemplary model data and
>> madis observation data? We'll analyze your situation and then be
better
>> equipped to provide you with the best course of
>> action for verifying soil moisture and temp. If your data is too
large to
>> attach to an email (>5MB), please upload it
>> to our FTP site using the following directions. Please let me know
if you
>> have any questions.
>>
>> ftp ftp.rap.ucar.edu
>> username = anonymous
>> password = "your email address"
>> cd incoming/irap/met_help/rabenhorst_data
>> put "your files"
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
>>> Wed Aug 25 12:08:30 2010: Request 40338 was acted upon.
>>> Transaction: Ticket created by scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
>>> Queue: met_help
>>> Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
>>> Owner: Nobody
>>> Requestors: scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
>>> Status: new
>>> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> Please forgive me for asking yet another question about the
comparison of
>>> model and point observations using MET. WPP outputs a 3D field for
soil
>>> moisture/temperature corresponding to individual layers. However,
these
>>> layers all have the same grib code and level. When using madis
data, is
>>> there a way to compare 2,4,8,20,40 inch observations to specific
model
>> soil
>>> layers? Should I just use the observation for the top layer, but
will
>> that
>>> get compared to the model top layer?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
From: Scott Rabenhorst
Time: Wed Sep 01 13:33:42 2010
Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to explain this in more detail. I was
dumping
the file header using "ncl_filedump" instead of wgrib. The latter does
provide alternative information. Point_stat worked correctly after
setting
the levels as you recommended. I'm still a little unclear as to why L0
was
used for PWAT and Z0 for the others. I assume this is because
kpds6=200 for
that field.
Regarding the MSONET tag, it would be easy enough to change this to
ADPSFC
in the meantime. That should work, right?
Lastly, did you have a chance to look into the soil layer match up
issue?
Thanks so much for your help!
Scott
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul Oldenburg} <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for sending us your data and configuration. We were able to
make
> adjustments to the fcst_field line of your
> configuration file so that it matched pairs for all of the
variables. We
> use the wgrib utility to print out the
> records, which are used it to extract variable and level
information:
>
> kpds5 - grib code (see
> http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table2.html)
>
> kpds6 - level type (see
> http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table3.html)
> pressure level - use PNNN or PNNN-NNN notation
> vertical level - use ZNNN notation
> other level type - use LNNN notation
>
> kpds7 - level value in units given by kpds6
>
> Consider some examples from your file WRFPRS_d01.000.grb:
>
> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep VIS
>
>
180:5261376:d=06080200:VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
>
> "VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config fcst_field
setting
> of VIS/Z0
>
>
> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PRATE
>
>
1214:40155908:d=06080200:PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
>
> "PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config
fcst_field
> setting of PRATE/Z0
>
>
> For level types that are neither pressure levels nor vertical
levels, use
> the ZNNN notation:
>
> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PWAT
>
1235:40309844:d=06080200:PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:atmos
> col:anl:NAve=0
> ...
>
> "PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config
fcst_field
> setting of PWAT/L0
>
>
> Here is the revised fcst_field line from the point_stat config file
that
> you sent us:
>
> fcst_field[] = [ "PRES/Z2", "PRMSL/Z0", "TMP/Z2", "VTMP/Z2",
"DPT/Z2",
> "VIS/Z0", "WIND/Z10", "UGRD/Z10", "VGRD/Z10",
> "RH/Z2", "MIXR/Z2", "PWAT/L0", "PRATE/Z0", "WTMP/Z0" ];
>
> We tested this new configuration setting and it yielded matched
pairs,
> except where the observation message type was
> MSONET. MET does not currently have the capability to recognize the
MSONET
> message type for surface variables. We'll
> talk to the scientists here to figure out how best handle MSONET
> observations.
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
>
> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay in response. I was out for a few days. Picking
up
> where
> > we left off, I am still struggling trying to access the model
fields for
> > verification. Below are links to my files, in particular, I have
included
> > grib header dump of my model fields "ncl_dump.txt" for you to look
at.
> One
> > can clearly see the field specifications for PRMSL (grib:2, L102),
VIS
> > (grb:20, L1), PWAT (grb:54, L0), PRATE (grb:59, L1), and WTMP
(grb:80,
> L1).
> > However, when I run point_stat I receive errors that it cannot
find the
> > requested fields. I tried specifying the field abreviation/LXXX,
but that
> > did not work. Then I tried surface level Z2 and Z10, but that did
not
> work
> > either. Could you please take a look and let me know what I am
specifying
> > incorrectly?
> >
> > My syntax:
> > point_stat WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
> MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-THEREST.nc
> > PointStatConfig -outdir .
> >
> > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
> > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/ncl_dump.txt
> >
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.ascii
> >
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.nc
> > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/PointStatConfig
> >
> > Figuring out how to process the above fields is a top priority
right now,
> > but after that, maybe we can return to the question regarding
different
> soil
> > layers. The following tar ball link has sever more observations
files
> from
> > madis for the same time, including examples of SOILT/M at various
depths.
> I
> > am not sure how to properly match a given observation to a
specific model
> > layer when grib code 85/144 L112 is the same for all 4 model soil
layers.
> >
> > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ALLSFC.tar.gz
> >
> > I look forward to hearing your recommendation for MET verification
of the
> > above fields. Thanks in advance for your help and time.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul
Oldenburg} <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Scott,
> >>
> >> The answer to your question depends on the nature of your data.
Can you
> >> please send us some exemplary model data and
> >> madis observation data? We'll analyze your situation and then be
better
> >> equipped to provide you with the best course of
> >> action for verifying soil moisture and temp. If your data is too
large
> to
> >> attach to an email (>5MB), please upload it
> >> to our FTP site using the following directions. Please let me
know if
> you
> >> have any questions.
> >>
> >> ftp ftp.rap.ucar.edu
> >> username = anonymous
> >> password = "your email address"
> >> cd incoming/irap/met_help/rabenhorst_data
> >> put "your files"
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> >>> Wed Aug 25 12:08:30 2010: Request 40338 was acted upon.
> >>> Transaction: Ticket created by scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> >>> Queue: met_help
> >>> Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
> >>> Owner: Nobody
> >>> Requestors: scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> >>> Status: new
> >>> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>> Please forgive me for asking yet another question about the
comparison
> of
> >>> model and point observations using MET. WPP outputs a 3D field
for soil
> >>> moisture/temperature corresponding to individual layers.
However, these
> >>> layers all have the same grib code and level. When using madis
data, is
> >>> there a way to compare 2,4,8,20,40 inch observations to specific
model
> >> soil
> >>> layers? Should I just use the observation for the top layer, but
will
> >> that
> >>> get compared to the model top layer?
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Scott
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #40338] MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
From: Paul Oldenburg
Time: Wed Sep 01 14:22:01 2010
Scott,
You can add the message type MSONET to the list of surface message
types in the MET source code by modifying the
following line in the MET source file lib/vx_met_util/constants.h and
rebuilding MET:
static const char onlysf_msg_typ_str[] = "ADPSFC SFCSHP";
If you change the line to look like this, then all MSONET observations
will be used as surface observations:
static const char onlysf_msg_typ_str[] = "ADPSFC SFCSHP MSONET";
Be advised that making this change will cause MET to assume that all
MSONET observations are taken from the surface
level. If this is not the case, then MET may match points that are
not on the same level. We are in the process of
designing a system to handle MSONET observations, but that
functionality is not currently in MET.
Regarding soil layer matching, I regret to inform you that METv2.0
does not handle soil levels in a way that you will
find useful. However, METv3.0 will be able to handle soil levels. We
anticipate the release of METv3.0 in the next
couple weeks.
If you have any other questions, please let us know.
Thanks,
Paul
RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to explain this in more detail. I was
dumping
> the file header using "ncl_filedump" instead of wgrib. The latter
does
> provide alternative information. Point_stat worked correctly after
setting
> the levels as you recommended. I'm still a little unclear as to why
L0 was
> used for PWAT and Z0 for the others. I assume this is because
kpds6=200 for
> that field.
>
> Regarding the MSONET tag, it would be easy enough to change this to
ADPSFC
> in the meantime. That should work, right?
>
> Lastly, did you have a chance to look into the soil layer match up
issue?
>
> Thanks so much for your help!
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul Oldenburg} <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Scott,
>>
>> Thanks for sending us your data and configuration. We were able to
make
>> adjustments to the fcst_field line of your
>> configuration file so that it matched pairs for all of the
variables. We
>> use the wgrib utility to print out the
>> records, which are used it to extract variable and level
information:
>>
>> kpds5 - grib code (see
>> http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table2.html)
>>
>> kpds6 - level type (see
>> http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table3.html)
>> pressure level - use PNNN or PNNN-NNN notation
>> vertical level - use ZNNN notation
>> other level type - use LNNN notation
>>
>> kpds7 - level value in units given by kpds6
>>
>> Consider some examples from your file WRFPRS_d01.000.grb:
>>
>> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep VIS
>>
>>
180:5261376:d=06080200:VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
>>
>> "VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config fcst_field
setting
>> of VIS/Z0
>>
>>
>> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PRATE
>>
>>
1214:40155908:d=06080200:PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
>>
>> "PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config
fcst_field
>> setting of PRATE/Z0
>>
>>
>> For level types that are neither pressure levels nor vertical
levels, use
>> the ZNNN notation:
>>
>> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PWAT
>>
1235:40309844:d=06080200:PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:atmos
>> col:anl:NAve=0
>> ...
>>
>> "PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config
fcst_field
>> setting of PWAT/L0
>>
>>
>> Here is the revised fcst_field line from the point_stat config file
that
>> you sent us:
>>
>> fcst_field[] = [ "PRES/Z2", "PRMSL/Z0", "TMP/Z2", "VTMP/Z2",
"DPT/Z2",
>> "VIS/Z0", "WIND/Z10", "UGRD/Z10", "VGRD/Z10",
>> "RH/Z2", "MIXR/Z2", "PWAT/L0", "PRATE/Z0", "WTMP/Z0" ];
>>
>> We tested this new configuration setting and it yielded matched
pairs,
>> except where the observation message type was
>> MSONET. MET does not currently have the capability to recognize
the MSONET
>> message type for surface variables. We'll
>> talk to the scientists here to figure out how best handle MSONET
>> observations.
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
>>> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay in response. I was out for a few days. Picking
up
>> where
>>> we left off, I am still struggling trying to access the model
fields for
>>> verification. Below are links to my files, in particular, I have
included
>>> grib header dump of my model fields "ncl_dump.txt" for you to look
at.
>> One
>>> can clearly see the field specifications for PRMSL (grib:2, L102),
VIS
>>> (grb:20, L1), PWAT (grb:54, L0), PRATE (grb:59, L1), and WTMP
(grb:80,
>> L1).
>>> However, when I run point_stat I receive errors that it cannot
find the
>>> requested fields. I tried specifying the field abreviation/LXXX,
but that
>>> did not work. Then I tried surface level Z2 and Z10, but that did
not
>> work
>>> either. Could you please take a look and let me know what I am
specifying
>>> incorrectly?
>>>
>>> My syntax:
>>> point_stat WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
>> MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-THEREST.nc
>>> PointStatConfig -outdir .
>>>
>>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
>>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/ncl_dump.txt
>>>
>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.ascii
>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.nc
>>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/PointStatConfig
>>>
>>> Figuring out how to process the above fields is a top priority
right now,
>>> but after that, maybe we can return to the question regarding
different
>> soil
>>> layers. The following tar ball link has sever more observations
files
>> from
>>> madis for the same time, including examples of SOILT/M at various
depths.
>> I
>>> am not sure how to properly match a given observation to a
specific model
>>> layer when grib code 85/144 L112 is the same for all 4 model soil
layers.
>>>
>>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ALLSFC.tar.gz
>>>
>>> I look forward to hearing your recommendation for MET verification
of the
>>> above fields. Thanks in advance for your help and time.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul
Oldenburg} <
>>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott,
>>>>
>>>> The answer to your question depends on the nature of your data.
Can you
>>>> please send us some exemplary model data and
>>>> madis observation data? We'll analyze your situation and then be
better
>>>> equipped to provide you with the best course of
>>>> action for verifying soil moisture and temp. If your data is too
large
>> to
>>>> attach to an email (>5MB), please upload it
>>>> to our FTP site using the following directions. Please let me
know if
>> you
>>>> have any questions.
>>>>
>>>> ftp ftp.rap.ucar.edu
>>>> username = anonymous
>>>> password = "your email address"
>>>> cd incoming/irap/met_help/rabenhorst_data
>>>> put "your files"
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
>>>>> Wed Aug 25 12:08:30 2010: Request 40338 was acted upon.
>>>>> Transaction: Ticket created by scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
>>>>> Queue: met_help
>>>>> Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
>>>>> Owner: Nobody
>>>>> Requestors: scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
>>>>> Status: new
>>>>> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> Please forgive me for asking yet another question about the
comparison
>> of
>>>>> model and point observations using MET. WPP outputs a 3D field
for soil
>>>>> moisture/temperature corresponding to individual layers.
However, these
>>>>> layers all have the same grib code and level. When using madis
data, is
>>>>> there a way to compare 2,4,8,20,40 inch observations to specific
model
>>>> soil
>>>>> layers? Should I just use the observation for the top layer, but
will
>>>> that
>>>>> get compared to the model top layer?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
From: Scott Rabenhorst
Time: Wed Sep 01 14:29:22 2010
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the details on how to add MSONET to the definition for
surface
observations. That makes sense. I will wait for MET3.0 to come out
before
trying to verify any soil moisture/temperature. Thanks very much for
your
help and prompt responses.
Scott
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul Oldenburg} <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> You can add the message type MSONET to the list of surface message
types in
> the MET source code by modifying the
> following line in the MET source file lib/vx_met_util/constants.h
and
> rebuilding MET:
>
> static const char onlysf_msg_typ_str[] = "ADPSFC SFCSHP";
>
> If you change the line to look like this, then all MSONET
observations will
> be used as surface observations:
>
> static const char onlysf_msg_typ_str[] = "ADPSFC SFCSHP MSONET";
>
> Be advised that making this change will cause MET to assume that all
MSONET
> observations are taken from the surface
> level. If this is not the case, then MET may match points that are
not on
> the same level. We are in the process of
> designing a system to handle MSONET observations, but that
functionality is
> not currently in MET.
>
> Regarding soil layer matching, I regret to inform you that METv2.0
does not
> handle soil levels in a way that you will
> find useful. However, METv3.0 will be able to handle soil levels.
We
> anticipate the release of METv3.0 in the next
> couple weeks.
>
> If you have any other questions, please let us know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
>
> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Thank you for taking the time to explain this in more detail. I
was
> dumping
> > the file header using "ncl_filedump" instead of wgrib. The latter
does
> > provide alternative information. Point_stat worked correctly after
> setting
> > the levels as you recommended. I'm still a little unclear as to
why L0
> was
> > used for PWAT and Z0 for the others. I assume this is because
kpds6=200
> for
> > that field.
> >
> > Regarding the MSONET tag, it would be easy enough to change this
to
> ADPSFC
> > in the meantime. That should work, right?
> >
> > Lastly, did you have a chance to look into the soil layer match up
issue?
> >
> > Thanks so much for your help!
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul Oldenburg}
<
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Scott,
> >>
> >> Thanks for sending us your data and configuration. We were able
to make
> >> adjustments to the fcst_field line of your
> >> configuration file so that it matched pairs for all of the
variables.
> We
> >> use the wgrib utility to print out the
> >> records, which are used it to extract variable and level
information:
> >>
> >> kpds5 - grib code (see
> >> http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table2.html)
> >>
> >> kpds6 - level type (see
> >> http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table3.html)
> >> pressure level - use PNNN or PNNN-NNN notation
> >> vertical level - use ZNNN notation
> >> other level type - use LNNN notation
> >>
> >> kpds7 - level value in units given by kpds6
> >>
> >> Consider some examples from your file WRFPRS_d01.000.grb:
> >>
> >> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep VIS
> >>
> >>
>
180:5261376:d=06080200:VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
> >>
> >> "VIS:kpds5=20:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config
fcst_field
> setting
> >> of VIS/Z0
> >>
> >>
> >> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PRATE
> >>
> >>
>
1214:40155908:d=06080200:PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:anl:NAve=0
> >>
> >> "PRATE:kpds5=59:kpds6=1:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config
fcst_field
> >> setting of PRATE/Z0
> >>
> >>
> >> For level types that are neither pressure levels nor vertical
levels,
> use
> >> the ZNNN notation:
> >>
> >> $ wgrib WRFPRS_d01.000.grb | grep PWAT
> >>
>
1235:40309844:d=06080200:PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0:TR=10:P1=0:P2=0:TimeU=1:atmos
> >> col:anl:NAve=0
> >> ...
> >>
> >> "PWAT:kpds5=54:kpds6=200:kpds7=0" gives a point_stat config
fcst_field
> >> setting of PWAT/L0
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is the revised fcst_field line from the point_stat config
file that
> >> you sent us:
> >>
> >> fcst_field[] = [ "PRES/Z2", "PRMSL/Z0", "TMP/Z2", "VTMP/Z2",
"DPT/Z2",
> >> "VIS/Z0", "WIND/Z10", "UGRD/Z10", "VGRD/Z10",
> >> "RH/Z2", "MIXR/Z2", "PWAT/L0", "PRATE/Z0", "WTMP/Z0" ];
> >>
> >> We tested this new configuration setting and it yielded matched
pairs,
> >> except where the observation message type was
> >> MSONET. MET does not currently have the capability to recognize
the
> MSONET
> >> message type for surface variables. We'll
> >> talk to the scientists here to figure out how best handle MSONET
> >> observations.
> >>
> >> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> >>> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338 >
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the delay in response. I was out for a few days.
Picking up
> >> where
> >>> we left off, I am still struggling trying to access the model
fields
> for
> >>> verification. Below are links to my files, in particular, I have
> included
> >>> grib header dump of my model fields "ncl_dump.txt" for you to
look at.
> >> One
> >>> can clearly see the field specifications for PRMSL (grib:2,
L102), VIS
> >>> (grb:20, L1), PWAT (grb:54, L0), PRATE (grb:59, L1), and WTMP
(grb:80,
> >> L1).
> >>> However, when I run point_stat I receive errors that it cannot
find the
> >>> requested fields. I tried specifying the field abreviation/LXXX,
but
> that
> >>> did not work. Then I tried surface level Z2 and Z10, but that
did not
> >> work
> >>> either. Could you please take a look and let me know what I am
> specifying
> >>> incorrectly?
> >>>
> >>> My syntax:
> >>> point_stat WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
> >> MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-THEREST.nc
> >>> PointStatConfig -outdir .
> >>>
> >>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/WRFPRS_d01.000.grb
> >>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/ncl_dump.txt
> >>>
> >>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.ascii
> >>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ADPSFC_ALLSFC-
THEREST.nc
> >>> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/PointStatConfig
> >>>
> >>> Figuring out how to process the above fields is a top priority
right
> now,
> >>> but after that, maybe we can return to the question regarding
different
> >> soil
> >>> layers. The following tar ball link has sever more observations
files
> >> from
> >>> madis for the same time, including examples of SOILT/M at
various
> depths.
> >> I
> >>> am not sure how to properly match a given observation to a
specific
> model
> >>> layer when grib code 85/144 L112 is the same for all 4 model
soil
> layers.
> >>>
> >>>
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9083643/MET_20060802_000000_ALLSFC.tar.gz
> >>>
> >>> I look forward to hearing your recommendation for MET
verification of
> the
> >>> above fields. Thanks in advance for your help and time.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, RAL HelpDesk {for Paul
Oldenburg} <
> >>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Scott,
> >>>>
> >>>> The answer to your question depends on the nature of your data.
Can
> you
> >>>> please send us some exemplary model data and
> >>>> madis observation data? We'll analyze your situation and then
be
> better
> >>>> equipped to provide you with the best course of
> >>>> action for verifying soil moisture and temp. If your data is
too
> large
> >> to
> >>>> attach to an email (>5MB), please upload it
> >>>> to our FTP site using the following directions. Please let me
know if
> >> you
> >>>> have any questions.
> >>>>
> >>>> ftp ftp.rap.ucar.edu
> >>>> username = anonymous
> >>>> password = "your email address"
> >>>> cd incoming/irap/met_help/rabenhorst_data
> >>>> put "your files"
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> RAL HelpDesk {for Scott Rabenhorst} wrote:
> >>>>> Wed Aug 25 12:08:30 2010: Request 40338 was acted upon.
> >>>>> Transaction: Ticket created by scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> >>>>> Queue: met_help
> >>>>> Subject: MET point_stat question regarding soil layers
> >>>>> Owner: Nobody
> >>>>> Requestors: scott.rabenhorst at gmail.com
> >>>>> Status: new
> >>>>> Ticket <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=40338>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>> Please forgive me for asking yet another question about the
> comparison
> >> of
> >>>>> model and point observations using MET. WPP outputs a 3D field
for
> soil
> >>>>> moisture/temperature corresponding to individual layers.
However,
> these
> >>>>> layers all have the same grib code and level. When using madis
data,
> is
> >>>>> there a way to compare 2,4,8,20,40 inch observations to
specific
> model
> >>>> soil
> >>>>> layers? Should I just use the observation for the top layer,
but will
> >>>> that
> >>>>> get compared to the model top layer?
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Scott
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list