[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #71500] History for Info
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Mon May 4 09:44:10 MDT 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi i'm an italian weather develpoer. I don't know if this is the right
mail, I have read met tool tutorial and in order to improve forecast
accuracy i'm searching a tool running on a linux enviroment providing
Model Ouput Statistical approach using ground station measures vs
gridded forecast. Have you news of some existing tools that made this
type of work linked with met?
Tks for a reply Paolo
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Info
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Mon Apr 20 10:48:56 2015
Paolo,
My name is John Halley Gotway, and I work at NCAR on the development
and
support of the MET tools. Yes, I think MET would be a good choice for
the
task you've described. The MET tools are designed to read gridded
numerical weather prediction data, compare it to gridded or point
observations, and compute statistics to describe how closely the
forecasts
match the observations. For point verification, you'd likely use...
(1) If you'd like to use global PREPBUFR observations, run the PB2NC
tool
to pre-process and reformat them.
If you'd like to use your own ascii point observations, run
ASCII2NC
to reformat them.
If you'd like to use MADIS observations, run the MADIS2NC tool.
(2) Run Point-Stat to compare your gridded forecast files to the point
observations.
(3) Run the Stat-Analysis tool to aggregate together the statistics
from
multiple Point-Stat runs.
There are many details to consider along the way, but yes, I think MET
would be a good choice.
Feel free to write with any issues or questions that arise in your use
of
MET.
Thanks,
John
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:31 AM, paolo at lrcser.it via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> Sat Apr 18 01:31:07 2015: Request 71500 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by paolo at lrcser.it
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: Info
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: paolo at lrcser.it
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=71500 >
>
>
> Hi i'm an italian weather develpoer. I don't know if this is the
right
> mail, I have read met tool tutorial and in order to improve
forecast
> accuracy i'm searching a tool running on a linux enviroment
providing
> Model Ouput Statistical approach using ground station measures vs
> gridded forecast. Have you news of some existing tools that made
this
> type of work linked with met?
> Tks for a reply Paolo
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #71500] Info
From: paolo at lrcser.it
Time: Mon Apr 20 23:44:29 2015
Tks for this reply.
Do you know if there are some tools linked with MET that provides MOS
outputs after verification?
Paolo
John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu> ha scritto:
> Paolo,
>
> My name is John Halley Gotway, and I work at NCAR on the development
and
> support of the MET tools. Yes, I think MET would be a good choice
for the
> task you've described. The MET tools are designed to read gridded
> numerical weather prediction data, compare it to gridded or point
> observations, and compute statistics to describe how closely the
forecasts
> match the observations. For point verification, you'd likely use...
>
> (1) If you'd like to use global PREPBUFR observations, run the PB2NC
tool
> to pre-process and reformat them.
> If you'd like to use your own ascii point observations, run
ASCII2NC
> to reformat them.
> If you'd like to use MADIS observations, run the MADIS2NC tool.
> (2) Run Point-Stat to compare your gridded forecast files to the
point
> observations.
> (3) Run the Stat-Analysis tool to aggregate together the statistics
from
> multiple Point-Stat runs.
>
> There are many details to consider along the way, but yes, I think
MET
> would be a good choice.
>
> Feel free to write with any issues or questions that arise in your
use of
> MET.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:31 AM, paolo at lrcser.it via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sat Apr 18 01:31:07 2015: Request 71500 was acted upon.
>> Transaction: Ticket created by paolo at lrcser.it
>> Queue: met_help
>> Subject: Info
>> Owner: Nobody
>> Requestors: paolo at lrcser.it
>> Status: new
>> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=71500 >
>>
>>
>> Hi i'm an italian weather develpoer. I don't know if this is the
right
>> mail, I have read met tool tutorial and in order to improve
forecast
>> accuracy i'm searching a tool running on a linux enviroment
providing
>> Model Ouput Statistical approach using ground station measures vs
>> gridded forecast. Have you news of some existing tools that made
this
>> type of work linked with met?
>> Tks for a reply Paolo
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Info
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Apr 21 10:30:39 2015
Unfortunately no, we don't have any statistical post-processing tools
associated with MET, and I'm not aware of any.
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:44 PM, paolo at lrcser.it via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=71500 >
>
> Tks for this reply.
> Do you know if there are some tools linked with MET that provides
MOS
> outputs after verification?
> Paolo
>
>
> John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu> ha scritto:
>
> > Paolo,
> >
> > My name is John Halley Gotway, and I work at NCAR on the
development and
> > support of the MET tools. Yes, I think MET would be a good choice
for
> the
> > task you've described. The MET tools are designed to read gridded
> > numerical weather prediction data, compare it to gridded or point
> > observations, and compute statistics to describe how closely the
> forecasts
> > match the observations. For point verification, you'd likely
use...
> >
> > (1) If you'd like to use global PREPBUFR observations, run the
PB2NC tool
> > to pre-process and reformat them.
> > If you'd like to use your own ascii point observations, run
ASCII2NC
> > to reformat them.
> > If you'd like to use MADIS observations, run the MADIS2NC
tool.
> > (2) Run Point-Stat to compare your gridded forecast files to the
point
> > observations.
> > (3) Run the Stat-Analysis tool to aggregate together the
statistics from
> > multiple Point-Stat runs.
> >
> > There are many details to consider along the way, but yes, I think
MET
> > would be a good choice.
> >
> > Feel free to write with any issues or questions that arise in your
use of
> > MET.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:31 AM, paolo at lrcser.it via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sat Apr 18 01:31:07 2015: Request 71500 was acted upon.
> >> Transaction: Ticket created by paolo at lrcser.it
> >> Queue: met_help
> >> Subject: Info
> >> Owner: Nobody
> >> Requestors: paolo at lrcser.it
> >> Status: new
> >> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=71500 >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi i'm an italian weather develpoer. I don't know if this is the
right
> >> mail, I have read met tool tutorial and in order to improve
forecast
> >> accuracy i'm searching a tool running on a linux enviroment
providing
> >> Model Ouput Statistical approach using ground station measures vs
> >> gridded forecast. Have you news of some existing tools that made
this
> >> type of work linked with met?
> >> Tks for a reply Paolo
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list