[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #72364] History for bufr coding issue

[John Halley Gotway via RT]

----------------------------------------------------------------
  Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,
I have three questions related to using MET for verification of aerosols species in WRF-Chem and another model called CMAQ. I plan to use pointstat.

1. I’d like to process observed aerosol concentrations and convert them with ascii2nc to a digestable format. Would that be a challenge for ascii2nc considering unknown aerosol (particulates) coding in tables for bufr/grib?

2. I am not familair with UPP. Could it be used for processing (gribbing) model aerosol (particulates) output from WRf-Chem?

3. CMAQ model is available in grib format  with lines that look like below. Do you see problems when processing it with pointstat in terms of e.g. map projection, other coding practices?

1:0:d=13081206:OZCON:kpds5=180:kpds6=107:kpds7=10000:TR=3:P1=5:P2=6:TimeU=1:sigma=1.0000:5-6hr ave:NAve=1

Does this approach seem ok or you see any problems with this plan?

Thanks,
Mariusz




----------------------------------------------------------------
  Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: bufr coding issue
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Jun 18 12:34:52 2015

Mariusz,

1. I don't think you'll have any problem formatting your observations
for
use by ASCII2NC.  I'd suggest looking at the existing GRIB code
conventions:
   http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/docs/on388/table2.html

If there's one that fits your data well, I'd suggest using that.  If
not,
you could always encode it using a different GRIB code.  Then you can
tell
Point-Stat exactly what observation types you'd like to use for the
verification.  Looks like the CMAQ output using GRIB code 180 for
ozone
concentration (OZCON) in parameter table version 129.  You could
choose to
use that same one.

When using GRIB code from tables other than the default (version 2),
you
may need to use the "GRIB1_ptv" config file setting in MET.  For
example,
"GRIB1_ptv = 129;" tells it to interprets strings using parameter
table
version 129.

2. Presumably, UPP would be able to post-process WRF-Chem output.  But
I'm
really not sure.  For more information about UPP, I'd suggest writing
wrfhelp at ucar.edu

3. I think you should go ahead and try verifying the CMAQ data using
the
Point-Stat tool.  I don't see any obvious problems with that approach.

Just let us know what other issues or questions arise.

Thanks,
John




On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Mariusz Pagowski via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:

>
> Wed Jun 17 14:15:06 2015: Request 72364 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by Mariusz.Pagowski at noaa.gov
>        Queue: met_help
>      Subject: bufr coding issue
>        Owner: Nobody
>   Requestors: Mariusz.Pagowski at noaa.gov
>       Status: new
>  Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=72364 >
>
>
> Hello,
> I have three questions related to using MET for verification of
aerosols
> species in WRF-Chem and another model called CMAQ. I plan to use
pointstat.
>
> 1. I’d like to process observed aerosol concentrations and convert
them
> with ascii2nc to a digestable format. Would that be a challenge for
> ascii2nc considering unknown aerosol (particulates) coding in tables
for
> bufr/grib?
>
> 2. I am not familair with UPP. Could it be used for processing
(gribbing)
> model aerosol (particulates) output from WRf-Chem?
>
> 3. CMAQ model is available in grib format  with lines that look like
> below. Do you see problems when processing it with pointstat in
terms of
> e.g. map projection, other coding practices?
>
>
1:0:d=13081206:OZCON:kpds5=180:kpds6=107:kpds7=10000:TR=3:P1=5:P2=6:TimeU=1:sigma=1.0000:5-
6hr
> ave:NAve=1
>
> Does this approach seem ok or you see any problems with this plan?
>
> Thanks,
> Mariusz
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------