[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #69415] History for Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or Larger than Three-Digit in UPP and MET
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Tue Oct 21 11:14:18 MDT 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear WRF Help and MET Help
Previously I noted that:
I'm postprocessing my WRF climate model outputs which are from 10-year
simulation from one initialization time.
I'm getting error with run_unipost when the forecast hour is 1002.
Error did not occur until the fhr=1002.
I checked that input file is existing in the directory but it seems that
WRFPRS1002.tm00 was not created for some reason.
I put the error message below.
Please let me know if this error is coming from the fhr number being too
large or else.
Related with this error, I found a suspicious point in the MET Users Guid
V5.0 on page 5-12. It is about naming convention of output STAT file from
Grid_Stat.
It reads:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The output STAT file is named using the following naming
convention: grid_stat__PREFIX_HHMMSSL_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSSV.stat where PREFIX
indicates the user-defined output prefix, YYYMMDDHH indicates the forecast
lead time
and YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS indicates the forecast valid time.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The file name parts for the forecast valid time are fine with no problem.
However, as highlighted above, the file name parts for the forecast lead
time do not match each other even in the users guide. Moreover, HH of the
forecast lead time increases from two-digit (e.g. 00, 06, 12, 18, etc.) and
it can grow into three-digit number (e.g. 102, ..., 996). But I'm not sure
if the original code can take four-digit or even more-digit numbers. In my
case, since I'm getting error with run_unipost when the forecast hour
becomes 1002, so I couldn't run the grid_stat for 1002 forecast hour case.
Nevertheless, I come to think that naming convention in the STAT output
might be related with limiting the forecast hour as input file up to only
three-digit and that this might be also true with the run_unipost. Actually
I got the idea from watching only three-digit YYY in the forecast lead
time, YYYMMDDHH, in the MET Users' Guide.
Could you please check if the forecast lead time is natively limited only
up to three-digit numbers in the UPP or MET by its source code?
For my 10-year climate simulation cases with one initial time, my forecast
hour could be as large as 87600 hours.
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Jinwoong Yoo
UNM
+ tmmark=tm00
+ export tmmark
+ MP_SHARED_MEMORY=yes
+ export MP_SHARED_MEMORY
+ MP_LABELIO=yes
+ export MP_LABELIO
+ NEWDATE=1870010100
+ export NEWDATE
+ [ 1002 -le 4320 ]
+ printf %02i 1002
+ fhr=1002
+ /glade/scratch/jyoo/UPPV2.2/bin/ndate.exe +1002 1870010100
+ NEWDATE=1870021118
+ echo 1870021118
+ cut -c1-4
+ YY=1870
+ cut -c5-6
+ echo 1870021118
+ MM=02
+ cut -c7-8
+ echo 1870021118
+ DD=11
+ echo 1870021118
+ cut -c9-10
+ HH=18
+ echo NEWDATE 1870021118
NEWDATE 1870021118
+ echo YY 1870
YY 1870
+ cat
+ 1> itag 0<< \EOF
../wrfprd/wrfout_d01_1870-02-11_18:00:00
netcdf
1870-02-11_18:00:00
NCAR
EOF
+ rm fort.110 fort.14
+ ln -sf wrf_cntrl.parm fort.14
+ /glade/scratch/jyoo/UPPV2.2/bin/unipost.exe
+ 1> unipost_d01.1002.out 2>& 1
+ cp WRFPRS1002.tm00 WRFPRS_d01.tm00.bk
cp: cannot stat `WRFPRS1002.tm00': No such file or directory
+ mv WRFPRS1002.tm00 WRFPRS_d01.1002
mv: cannot stat `WRFPRS1002.tm00': No such file or directory
+ ls -l WRFPRS_d01.1002
ls: cannot access WRFPRS_d01.1002: No such file or directory
+ err1=2
+ test 2 -ne 0
+ echo 'UNIPOST FAILED, EXITTING'
UNIPOST FAILED, EXITTING
+ exit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or Larger than Three-Digit in UPP and MET
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Mon Oct 20 13:10:23 2014
Jinwoong,
I see that you're wondering how MET will handle very large values for
lead
time. I ran a test case this morning, by manually editing the NetCDF
output of pcp_combine to mimic a forecast lead time of 10 years. I
then
ran the data through the grid_stat tool and it ran fine. The
resulting
lead time value was 1753320000, which is 175332 hours, 00 minutes, and
00
seconds.
I can't guarantee that all aspects of MET will run smoothly with these
sorts of times, but there are currently no obvious problems handling
time
values of this size in the MET software.
John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jeffrey Stolte via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> Mon Oct 20 09:19:58 2014: Request 69415 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Given to johnhg by stolte
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or
Larger than
> Three-Digit in UPP and MET
> Owner: johnhg
> Requestors: jinwoong.yoo at gmail.com
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415 >
>
>
> This transaction appears to have no content
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or Larger than Three-Digit in UPP and MET
From: Jinwoong Yoo
Time: Mon Oct 20 13:30:25 2014
Dear John,
Thank you for checking on that for me.
Then, it might be just a typo in the MET Users' Guide.
But I haven't heard from WRF Help folks.
I really want to figure out the UPP issue at the forecast hour of
1002. :)
Thank you.
Regards,
Jinwoong Yoo
UNM
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Jinwoong,
>
> I see that you're wondering how MET will handle very large values
for lead
> time. I ran a test case this morning, by manually editing the
NetCDF
> output of pcp_combine to mimic a forecast lead time of 10 years. I
then
> ran the data through the grid_stat tool and it ran fine. The
resulting
> lead time value was 1753320000, which is 175332 hours, 00 minutes,
and 00
> seconds.
>
> I can't guarantee that all aspects of MET will run smoothly with
these
> sorts of times, but there are currently no obvious problems handling
time
> values of this size in the MET software.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jeffrey Stolte via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Mon Oct 20 09:19:58 2014: Request 69415 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Given to johnhg by stolte
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or
Larger
> than
> > Three-Digit in UPP and MET
> > Owner: johnhg
> > Requestors: jinwoong.yoo at gmail.com
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415 >
> >
> >
> > This transaction appears to have no content
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or Larger than Three-Digit in UPP and MET
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Mon Oct 20 14:18:24 2014
Jinwoong,
Can you tell me where in the MET User's Guide you're seeing the
"typo"? I
can update it and clarify in the next version that HH indicates an
arbitrary number of forecast hours.
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jinwoong Yoo via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415 >
>
> Dear John,
>
> Thank you for checking on that for me.
> Then, it might be just a typo in the MET Users' Guide.
> But I haven't heard from WRF Help folks.
> I really want to figure out the UPP issue at the forecast hour of
1002. :)
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jinwoong Yoo
> UNM
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Jinwoong,
> >
> > I see that you're wondering how MET will handle very large values
for
> lead
> > time. I ran a test case this morning, by manually editing the
NetCDF
> > output of pcp_combine to mimic a forecast lead time of 10 years.
I then
> > ran the data through the grid_stat tool and it ran fine. The
resulting
> > lead time value was 1753320000, which is 175332 hours, 00 minutes,
and 00
> > seconds.
> >
> > I can't guarantee that all aspects of MET will run smoothly with
these
> > sorts of times, but there are currently no obvious problems
handling time
> > values of this size in the MET software.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jeffrey Stolte via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Mon Oct 20 09:19:58 2014: Request 69415 was acted upon.
> > > Transaction: Given to johnhg by stolte
> > > Queue: met_help
> > > Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or
Larger
> > than
> > > Three-Digit in UPP and MET
> > > Owner: johnhg
> > > Requestors: jinwoong.yoo at gmail.com
> > > Status: new
> > > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This transaction appears to have no content
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or Larger than Three-Digit in UPP and MET
From: Jinwoong Yoo
Time: Mon Oct 20 15:18:19 2014
Dear John,
In the MET Users Guid V5.0 on page 5-12, it reads:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The output STAT file is named using the following naming
convention: grid_stat__PREFIX_HHMMSSL_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSSV.stat where
PREFIX
indicates the user-defined output prefix, YYYMMDDHH indicates the
forecast
lead time
and YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS indicates the forecast valid time.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The highlighted YYYMMDDHH should be HHMMSSL, I think.
Thank you.
Jinwoong Yoo
UNM
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:18 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Jinwoong,
>
> Can you tell me where in the MET User's Guide you're seeing the
"typo"? I
> can update it and clarify in the next version that HH indicates an
> arbitrary number of forecast hours.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jinwoong Yoo via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415 >
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> > Thank you for checking on that for me.
> > Then, it might be just a typo in the MET Users' Guide.
> > But I haven't heard from WRF Help folks.
> > I really want to figure out the UPP issue at the forecast hour of
1002.
> :)
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jinwoong Yoo
> > UNM
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Jinwoong,
> > >
> > > I see that you're wondering how MET will handle very large
values for
> > lead
> > > time. I ran a test case this morning, by manually editing the
NetCDF
> > > output of pcp_combine to mimic a forecast lead time of 10 years.
I
> then
> > > ran the data through the grid_stat tool and it ran fine. The
resulting
> > > lead time value was 1753320000, which is 175332 hours, 00
minutes, and
> 00
> > > seconds.
> > >
> > > I can't guarantee that all aspects of MET will run smoothly with
these
> > > sorts of times, but there are currently no obvious problems
handling
> time
> > > values of this size in the MET software.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jeffrey Stolte via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mon Oct 20 09:19:58 2014: Request 69415 was acted upon.
> > > > Transaction: Given to johnhg by stolte
> > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or
Larger
> > > than
> > > > Three-Digit in UPP and MET
> > > > Owner: johnhg
> > > > Requestors: jinwoong.yoo at gmail.com
> > > > Status: new
> > > > Ticket <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This transaction appears to have no content
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or Larger than Three-Digit in UPP and MET
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Oct 21 09:32:57 2014
Thanks for letting me know. I made a note of it and will correct it
before
the next release.
Do you have any other MET issues or questions at this time? Or can I
resolve this ticket?
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jinwoong Yoo via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415 >
>
> Dear John,
>
>
> In the MET Users Guid V5.0 on page 5-12, it reads:
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> The output STAT file is named using the following naming
> convention: grid_stat__PREFIX_HHMMSSL_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSSV.stat where
PREFIX
> indicates the user-defined output prefix, YYYMMDDHH indicates the
forecast
> lead time
> and YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS indicates the forecast valid time.
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
>
> The highlighted YYYMMDDHH should be HHMMSSL, I think.
> Thank you.
>
> Jinwoong Yoo
> UNM
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:18 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Jinwoong,
> >
> > Can you tell me where in the MET User's Guide you're seeing the
"typo"?
> I
> > can update it and clarify in the next version that HH indicates an
> > arbitrary number of forecast hours.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jinwoong Yoo via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415 >
> > >
> > > Dear John,
> > >
> > > Thank you for checking on that for me.
> > > Then, it might be just a typo in the MET Users' Guide.
> > > But I haven't heard from WRF Help folks.
> > > I really want to figure out the UPP issue at the forecast hour
of 1002.
> > :)
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Jinwoong Yoo
> > > UNM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jinwoong,
> > > >
> > > > I see that you're wondering how MET will handle very large
values for
> > > lead
> > > > time. I ran a test case this morning, by manually editing the
NetCDF
> > > > output of pcp_combine to mimic a forecast lead time of 10
years. I
> > then
> > > > ran the data through the grid_stat tool and it ran fine. The
> resulting
> > > > lead time value was 1753320000, which is 175332 hours, 00
minutes,
> and
> > 00
> > > > seconds.
> > > >
> > > > I can't guarantee that all aspects of MET will run smoothly
with
> these
> > > > sorts of times, but there are currently no obvious problems
handling
> > time
> > > > values of this size in the MET software.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jeffrey Stolte via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mon Oct 20 09:19:58 2014: Request 69415 was acted upon.
> > > > > Transaction: Given to johnhg by stolte
> > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal
or
> Larger
> > > > than
> > > > > Three-Digit in UPP and MET
> > > > > Owner: johnhg
> > > > > Requestors: jinwoong.yoo at gmail.com
> > > > > Status: new
> > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This transaction appears to have no content
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time Equal or Larger than Three-Digit in UPP and MET
From: Jinwoong Yoo
Time: Tue Oct 21 11:05:02 2014
Dear John,
As I cc'ed an email for WRF Help folks to you,
now this issue is being taken care of by them.
So you might close this ticket now.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Jinwoong Yoo
UNM
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:32 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Thanks for letting me know. I made a note of it and will correct it
before
> the next release.
>
> Do you have any other MET issues or questions at this time? Or can
I
> resolve this ticket?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jinwoong Yoo via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415 >
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> >
> > In the MET Users Guid V5.0 on page 5-12, it reads:
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > The output STAT file is named using the following naming
> > convention: grid_stat__PREFIX_HHMMSSL_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSSV.stat where
PREFIX
> > indicates the user-defined output prefix, YYYMMDDHH indicates the
> forecast
> > lead time
> > and YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS indicates the forecast valid time.
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> >
> >
> > The highlighted YYYMMDDHH should be HHMMSSL, I think.
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Jinwoong Yoo
> > UNM
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:18 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Jinwoong,
> > >
> > > Can you tell me where in the MET User's Guide you're seeing the
"typo"?
> > I
> > > can update it and clarify in the next version that HH indicates
an
> > > arbitrary number of forecast hours.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jinwoong Yoo via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415
>
> > > >
> > > > Dear John,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for checking on that for me.
> > > > Then, it might be just a typo in the MET Users' Guide.
> > > > But I haven't heard from WRF Help folks.
> > > > I really want to figure out the UPP issue at the forecast hour
of
> 1002.
> > > :)
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Jinwoong Yoo
> > > > UNM
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jinwoong,
> > > > >
> > > > > I see that you're wondering how MET will handle very large
values
> for
> > > > lead
> > > > > time. I ran a test case this morning, by manually editing
the
> NetCDF
> > > > > output of pcp_combine to mimic a forecast lead time of 10
years. I
> > > then
> > > > > ran the data through the grid_stat tool and it ran fine.
The
> > resulting
> > > > > lead time value was 1753320000, which is 175332 hours, 00
minutes,
> > and
> > > 00
> > > > > seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't guarantee that all aspects of MET will run smoothly
with
> > these
> > > > > sorts of times, but there are currently no obvious problems
> handling
> > > time
> > > > > values of this size in the MET software.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jeffrey Stolte via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mon Oct 20 09:19:58 2014: Request 69415 was acted upon.
> > > > > > Transaction: Given to johnhg by stolte
> > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > Subject: Potential Error with Forecast Lead Time
Equal or
> > Larger
> > > > > than
> > > > > > Three-Digit in UPP and MET
> > > > > > Owner: johnhg
> > > > > > Requestors: jinwoong.yoo at gmail.com
> > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=69415
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This transaction appears to have no content
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list