[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] History for questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Wed Aug 9 10:13:23 MDT 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
I have a question about the calculation of contingency table scores such as
CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For reference I've attached
that file plus the postscript file and the other two output files from a run
I did using forecast and observed radar reflectivity.
In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with observation
outlines, I see the red forecast object which was matched with the blue
outlined observation object. I see in this plot areas where there are "hits"
(FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined area. I see
"misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not overlap a red area.
Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their respective columns in
the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas where the red areas do
not overlay a blue outlined area which corresponds to "false alarms"
(FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false alarm events
with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in the cts.txt file
at:
http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tutorial/METv5.2/tutorial.p
hp?name=mode&category=output
The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas and 0 for
non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue outlined areas. If
a simple contingency table of outcomes is generated form this, why are there
no false alarm events?
Another question regarding the first page of the postscript output file. In
the table on the right side of the page, total interest values for pairs
of simple objects are listed in sorted order. My understanding from the
User's Guide was that those pairs of simple objects whose interest value
fell below the interest threshold were not "matched", but if I look in the
plot, I can see simple objects with red numbers (part of the merged forecast
and observed objects) which also show in the table on the right with
interest values less than the threshold which are "matched". An example of
this is object 6 (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that same color
objects in both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship between
the interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered simple objects
which are colored royal blue which should indicate "unmatched" also appear
in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't quite understand the presence of
"pairs" in the table versus the simple numbered objects appearing in the
plots.
Thanks.
R/
John
Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
(575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Jul 12 11:41:05 2017
Hi John,
I see that you have a question about the categorical counts and
statistics
included in the output of MODE. You're wondering why the false alarm
counts (FY_ON) are set to 0. And looking closely at the TOTAL column
in
the cts.txt file, you'll see that the number of matched pairs is 222.
However, looking in the NetCDF file you sent, I see that the grid
dimension
is 204 x 204... so the total number of grid points *should* be 41,616!
The answer lies in the PostScript plot you sent. While all 41,616
forecast
grid points contain valid data, only 222 of the observation grid
points
contain valid data values. All that gray area in the observation field
is
missing data. MODE only computes categorical statistics at grid
points
which contain valid data in both fields.
I assume that you'd like the observation field missing data values to
actually be set to a value of 0 instead.
You could do this in one of two ways...
(1) Run the observation field through the gen_vx_mask tool in MET as a
way
of preprocessing the data and changing those bad data values to 0.
This
would be necessary if you want to also run this data through Grid-
Stat.
(2) In the MODE config file in the "obs" section, set:
raw_thresh = !=NA;
MODE will read in the observation field and any grid point not meeting
the
threshold criteria will be reset to a value of 0.
Please give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Jul 11 12:40:17 2017: Request 81164 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I have a question about the calculation of contingency table scores
such as
> CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For reference I've
attached
> that file plus the postscript file and the other two output files
from a
> run
> I did using forecast and observed radar reflectivity.
>
> In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with
observation
> outlines, I see the red forecast object which was matched with the
blue
> outlined observation object. I see in this plot areas where there
are
> "hits"
> (FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined
area. I see
> "misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not overlap a red
area.
> Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their respective
columns
> in
> the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas where the red
areas do
> not overlay a blue outlined area which corresponds to "false alarms"
> (FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false alarm
events
> with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in the cts.txt
file
> at:
> http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tutorial/
> METv5.2/tutorial.p
> hp?name=mode&category=output
>
> The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas and
0 for
> non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue outlined
areas. If
> a simple contingency table of outcomes is generated form this, why
are
> there
> no false alarm events?
>
> Another question regarding the first page of the postscript output
file. In
> the table on the right side of the page, total interest values for
pairs
> of simple objects are listed in sorted order. My understanding from
the
> User's Guide was that those pairs of simple objects whose interest
value
> fell below the interest threshold were not "matched", but if I look
in the
> plot, I can see simple objects with red numbers (part of the merged
> forecast
> and observed objects) which also show in the table on the right with
> interest values less than the threshold which are "matched". An
example of
> this is object 6 (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that
same
> color
> objects in both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship
> between
> the interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered simple
objects
> which are colored royal blue which should indicate "unmatched" also
appear
> in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't quite understand the
presence of
> "pairs" in the table versus the simple numbered objects appearing in
the
> plots.
>
> Thanks.
>
> R/
> John
>
> Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory
> White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
> (575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
> FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
> Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
>
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Raby, John W USA CIV
Time: Wed Jul 12 13:07:06 2017
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
John -
Thanks for looking at my data and pointing out the situation with
regard to
the missing data in the observation field. I'll try option 2) first
and let
you know what I see as differences in the output.
R/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:41 AM
To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions about
MODE
output (UNCLASSIFIED)
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify
the
identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
contained
within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
browser.
----
Hi John,
I see that you have a question about the categorical counts and
statistics
included in the output of MODE. You're wondering why the false alarm
counts
(FY_ON) are set to 0. And looking closely at the TOTAL column in the
cts.txt
file, you'll see that the number of matched pairs is 222.
However, looking in the NetCDF file you sent, I see that the grid
dimension is
204 x 204... so the total number of grid points *should* be 41,616!
The answer lies in the PostScript plot you sent. While all 41,616
forecast
grid points contain valid data, only 222 of the observation grid
points
contain valid data values. All that gray area in the observation field
is
missing data. MODE only computes categorical statistics at grid
points which
contain valid data in both fields.
I assume that you'd like the observation field missing data values to
actually
be set to a value of 0 instead.
You could do this in one of two ways...
(1) Run the observation field through the gen_vx_mask tool in MET as a
way of
preprocessing the data and changing those bad data values to 0. This
would be
necessary if you want to also run this data through Grid-Stat.
(2) In the MODE config file in the "obs" section, set:
raw_thresh = !=NA;
MODE will read in the observation field and any grid point not meeting
the
threshold criteria will be reset to a value of 0.
Please give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Jul 11 12:40:17 2017: Request 81164 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Status: new
> Ticket <Caution-url:
> Caution-https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I have a question about the calculation of contingency table scores
> such as CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For reference
> I've attached that file plus the postscript file and the other two
> output files from a run I did using forecast and observed radar
> reflectivity.
>
> In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with
> observation outlines, I see the red forecast object which was
matched
> with the blue outlined observation object. I see in this plot areas
> where there are "hits"
> (FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined
area.
> I see "misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not overlap
a red
> area.
> Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their respective
> columns in the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas where
> the red areas do not overlay a blue outlined area which corresponds
to
> "false alarms"
> (FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false alarm
> events with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in the
> cts.txt file
> at:
> Caution-http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tutorial/
> METv5.2/tutorial.p
> hp?name=mode&category=output
>
> The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas and
0
> for non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue
outlined
> areas. If a simple contingency table of outcomes is generated form
> this, why are there no false alarm events?
>
> Another question regarding the first page of the postscript output
> file. In the table on the right side of the page, total interest
> values for pairs of simple objects are listed in sorted order. My
> understanding from the User's Guide was that those pairs of simple
> objects whose interest value fell below the interest threshold were
> not "matched", but if I look in the plot, I can see simple objects
> with red numbers (part of the merged forecast and observed objects)
> which also show in the table on the right with interest values less
> than the threshold which are "matched". An example of this is object
6
> (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that same color objects
in
> both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship between
the
> interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered simple
objects
> which are colored royal blue which should indicate "unmatched" also
> appear in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't quite understand the
> presence of "pairs" in the table versus the simple numbered objects
> appearing in the plots.
>
> Thanks.
>
> R/
> John
>
> Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory
> White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
> (575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
> FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
> Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
>
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
------------------------------------------------
Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Raby, John W USA CIV
Time: Wed Jul 12 16:17:07 2017
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
John -
The batch job got held up in the queue more than I expected. Just
noted that
MODE ran but had a syntax error. See attached log. I'll try again
tomorrow.
R/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:41 AM
To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions about
MODE
output (UNCLASSIFIED)
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify
the
identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
contained
within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
browser.
----
Hi John,
I see that you have a question about the categorical counts and
statistics
included in the output of MODE. You're wondering why the false alarm
counts
(FY_ON) are set to 0. And looking closely at the TOTAL column in the
cts.txt
file, you'll see that the number of matched pairs is 222.
However, looking in the NetCDF file you sent, I see that the grid
dimension is
204 x 204... so the total number of grid points *should* be 41,616!
The answer lies in the PostScript plot you sent. While all 41,616
forecast
grid points contain valid data, only 222 of the observation grid
points
contain valid data values. All that gray area in the observation field
is
missing data. MODE only computes categorical statistics at grid
points which
contain valid data in both fields.
I assume that you'd like the observation field missing data values to
actually
be set to a value of 0 instead.
You could do this in one of two ways...
(1) Run the observation field through the gen_vx_mask tool in MET as a
way of
preprocessing the data and changing those bad data values to 0. This
would be
necessary if you want to also run this data through Grid-Stat.
(2) In the MODE config file in the "obs" section, set:
raw_thresh = !=NA;
MODE will read in the observation field and any grid point not meeting
the
threshold criteria will be reset to a value of 0.
Please give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Jul 11 12:40:17 2017: Request 81164 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Status: new
> Ticket <Caution-url:
> Caution-https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I have a question about the calculation of contingency table scores
> such as CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For reference
> I've attached that file plus the postscript file and the other two
> output files from a run I did using forecast and observed radar
> reflectivity.
>
> In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with
> observation outlines, I see the red forecast object which was
matched
> with the blue outlined observation object. I see in this plot areas
> where there are "hits"
> (FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined
area.
> I see "misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not overlap
a red
> area.
> Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their respective
> columns in the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas where
> the red areas do not overlay a blue outlined area which corresponds
to
> "false alarms"
> (FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false alarm
> events with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in the
> cts.txt file
> at:
> Caution-http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tutorial/
> METv5.2/tutorial.p
> hp?name=mode&category=output
>
> The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas and
0
> for non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue
outlined
> areas. If a simple contingency table of outcomes is generated form
> this, why are there no false alarm events?
>
> Another question regarding the first page of the postscript output
> file. In the table on the right side of the page, total interest
> values for pairs of simple objects are listed in sorted order. My
> understanding from the User's Guide was that those pairs of simple
> objects whose interest value fell below the interest threshold were
> not "matched", but if I look in the plot, I can see simple objects
> with red numbers (part of the merged forecast and observed objects)
> which also show in the table on the right with interest values less
> than the threshold which are "matched". An example of this is object
6
> (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that same color objects
in
> both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship between
the
> interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered simple
objects
> which are colored royal blue which should indicate "unmatched" also
> appear in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't quite understand the
> presence of "pairs" in the table versus the simple numbered objects
> appearing in the plots.
>
> Thanks.
>
> R/
> John
>
> Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory
> White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
> (575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
> FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
> Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
>
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
------------------------------------------------
Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Raby, John W USA CIV
Time: Thu Jul 13 11:11:09 2017
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
I tried running gen_vx_mask (V5.2) by using the NetCDF observation
file as
"input", the same file was used for "mask" so I would generate the
output file
on the same domain as the original domain. I'm getting a "range check
error".
See attached log file and the observation file. Is there something I'm
doing
wrong? Not sure how to debug this.
Thanks.
R/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:41 AM
To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions about
MODE
output (UNCLASSIFIED)
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify
the
identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
contained
within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
browser.
----
Hi John,
I see that you have a question about the categorical counts and
statistics
included in the output of MODE. You're wondering why the false alarm
counts
(FY_ON) are set to 0. And looking closely at the TOTAL column in the
cts.txt
file, you'll see that the number of matched pairs is 222.
However, looking in the NetCDF file you sent, I see that the grid
dimension is
204 x 204... so the total number of grid points *should* be 41,616!
The answer lies in the PostScript plot you sent. While all 41,616
forecast
grid points contain valid data, only 222 of the observation grid
points
contain valid data values. All that gray area in the observation field
is
missing data. MODE only computes categorical statistics at grid
points which
contain valid data in both fields.
I assume that you'd like the observation field missing data values to
actually
be set to a value of 0 instead.
You could do this in one of two ways...
(1) Run the observation field through the gen_vx_mask tool in MET as a
way of
preprocessing the data and changing those bad data values to 0. This
would be
necessary if you want to also run this data through Grid-Stat.
(2) In the MODE config file in the "obs" section, set:
raw_thresh = !=NA;
MODE will read in the observation field and any grid point not meeting
the
threshold criteria will be reset to a value of 0.
Please give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Jul 11 12:40:17 2017: Request 81164 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Status: new
> Ticket <Caution-url:
> Caution-https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I have a question about the calculation of contingency table scores
> such as CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For reference
> I've attached that file plus the postscript file and the other two
> output files from a run I did using forecast and observed radar
> reflectivity.
>
> In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with
> observation outlines, I see the red forecast object which was
matched
> with the blue outlined observation object. I see in this plot areas
> where there are "hits"
> (FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined
area.
> I see "misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not overlap
a red
> area.
> Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their respective
> columns in the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas where
> the red areas do not overlay a blue outlined area which corresponds
to
> "false alarms"
> (FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false alarm
> events with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in the
> cts.txt file
> at:
> Caution-http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tutorial/
> METv5.2/tutorial.p
> hp?name=mode&category=output
>
> The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas and
0
> for non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue
outlined
> areas. If a simple contingency table of outcomes is generated form
> this, why are there no false alarm events?
>
> Another question regarding the first page of the postscript output
> file. In the table on the right side of the page, total interest
> values for pairs of simple objects are listed in sorted order. My
> understanding from the User's Guide was that those pairs of simple
> objects whose interest value fell below the interest threshold were
> not "matched", but if I look in the plot, I can see simple objects
> with red numbers (part of the merged forecast and observed objects)
> which also show in the table on the right with interest values less
> than the threshold which are "matched". An example of this is object
6
> (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that same color objects
in
> both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship between
the
> interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered simple
objects
> which are colored royal blue which should indicate "unmatched" also
> appear in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't quite understand the
> presence of "pairs" in the table versus the simple numbered objects
> appearing in the plots.
>
> Thanks.
>
> R/
> John
>
> Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory
> White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
> (575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
> FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
> Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
>
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
------------------------------------------------
Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Jul 13 12:25:53 2017
John,
Sorry I meant to write back yesterday afternoon. I forgot that you
were
using met-5.2. I'm not sure if the "==NA" syntax works in 5.2 or not.
Thanks for sending the sample data.
Here are step which demonstrate how gen_vx_mask could be used to
change
values of bad data (-9999) to 0:
(1) Run plot_data_plane to display the CZ field.
met-5.2/bin/plot_data_plane ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc cz.ps
'name="CZ";
level="(0,0,*,*)";'
(2) Convert to PNG and attach the result.
convert -rotate 90 -background white -flatten cz.ps cz.png
(3) Run gen_vx_mask to change those bad data values to 0:
met-5.2/bin/gen_vx_mask \
ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc \
ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc \
cz_reformat.nc \
-type data -input_field 'name="CZ"; level="(0,0,*,*)";' \
-mask_field 'name="CZ"; level="(0,0,*,*)";' \
-thresh ==-9999 -value 0 -name CZ
(4) Run plot_data_plane to display the reformatted CZ field.
met-5.2/bin/plot_data_plane cz_reformat.nc cz_reformat.ps 'name="CZ";
level="(*,*)";'
(5) Convert to PNG and attach the result.
convert -rotate 90 -background white -flatten cz_reformat.ps
cz_reformat.png
I played around with the raw_thresh in the MODE configuration file but
couldn't get it to do what I wanted.
Hopefully this helps get you going.
Thanks,
John
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I tried running gen_vx_mask (V5.2) by using the NetCDF observation
file as
> "input", the same file was used for "mask" so I would generate the
output
> file
> on the same domain as the original domain. I'm getting a "range
check
> error".
> See attached log file and the observation file. Is there something
I'm
> doing
> wrong? Not sure how to debug this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> R/
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:41 AM
> To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions
about
> MODE
> output (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
contained
> within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
> browser.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Hi John,
>
> I see that you have a question about the categorical counts and
statistics
> included in the output of MODE. You're wondering why the false
alarm
> counts
> (FY_ON) are set to 0. And looking closely at the TOTAL column in
the
> cts.txt
> file, you'll see that the number of matched pairs is 222.
> However, looking in the NetCDF file you sent, I see that the grid
> dimension is
> 204 x 204... so the total number of grid points *should* be 41,616!
>
> The answer lies in the PostScript plot you sent. While all 41,616
forecast
> grid points contain valid data, only 222 of the observation grid
points
> contain valid data values. All that gray area in the observation
field is
> missing data. MODE only computes categorical statistics at grid
points
> which
> contain valid data in both fields.
>
> I assume that you'd like the observation field missing data values
to
> actually
> be set to a value of 0 instead.
>
> You could do this in one of two ways...
>
> (1) Run the observation field through the gen_vx_mask tool in MET as
a way
> of
> preprocessing the data and changing those bad data values to 0.
This
> would be
> necessary if you want to also run this data through Grid-Stat.
>
> (2) In the MODE config file in the "obs" section, set:
> raw_thresh = !=NA;
>
> MODE will read in the observation field and any grid point not
meeting the
> threshold criteria will be reset to a value of 0.
>
> Please give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Jul 11 12:40:17 2017: Request 81164 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <Caution-url:
> > Caution-https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
> >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> > I have a question about the calculation of contingency table
scores
> > such as CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For
reference
> > I've attached that file plus the postscript file and the other two
> > output files from a run I did using forecast and observed radar
> > reflectivity.
> >
> > In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with
> > observation outlines, I see the red forecast object which was
matched
> > with the blue outlined observation object. I see in this plot
areas
> > where there are "hits"
> > (FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined
area.
> > I see "misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not
overlap a
> red
> > area.
> > Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their respective
> > columns in the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas
where
> > the red areas do not overlay a blue outlined area which
corresponds to
> > "false alarms"
> > (FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false alarm
> > events with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in
the
> > cts.txt file
> > at:
> > Caution-http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tutorial/
> > METv5.2/tutorial.p
> > hp?name=mode&category=output
> >
> > The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas
and 0
> > for non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue
outlined
> > areas. If a simple contingency table of outcomes is generated form
> > this, why are there no false alarm events?
> >
> > Another question regarding the first page of the postscript output
> > file. In the table on the right side of the page, total interest
> > values for pairs of simple objects are listed in sorted order. My
> > understanding from the User's Guide was that those pairs of simple
> > objects whose interest value fell below the interest threshold
were
> > not "matched", but if I look in the plot, I can see simple objects
> > with red numbers (part of the merged forecast and observed
objects)
> > which also show in the table on the right with interest values
less
> > than the threshold which are "matched". An example of this is
object 6
> > (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that same color
objects in
> > both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship between
the
> > interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered simple
objects
> > which are colored royal blue which should indicate "unmatched"
also
> > appear in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't quite understand
the
> > presence of "pairs" in the table versus the simple numbered
objects
> > appearing in the plots.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > R/
> > John
> >
> > Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
> > U.S. Army Research Laboratory
> > White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
> > (575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
> > FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
> > Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> >
> >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Raby, John W USA CIV
Time: Thu Jul 13 13:57:54 2017
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
John -
I noticed a small difference in the raw_thresh setting syntax in your
email
below. I propose the following test:
I'll try using
raw_thresh = ==NA;
instead of
raw_thresh = !=NA;
Thanks for debugging the issue I was having with gen_vx_mask. I'll
test your
method below and let you know.
R/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:26 PM
To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions
about
MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify
the
identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
contained
within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
browser.
----
John,
Sorry I meant to write back yesterday afternoon. I forgot that you
were using
met-5.2. I'm not sure if the "==NA" syntax works in 5.2 or not.
Thanks for sending the sample data.
Here are step which demonstrate how gen_vx_mask could be used to
change values
of bad data (-9999) to 0:
(1) Run plot_data_plane to display the CZ field.
met-5.2/bin/plot_data_plane ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc cz.ps
'name="CZ";
level="(0,0,*,*)";'
(2) Convert to PNG and attach the result.
convert -rotate 90 -background white -flatten cz.ps cz.png
(3) Run gen_vx_mask to change those bad data values to 0:
met-5.2/bin/gen_vx_mask \
ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc \
ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc \
cz_reformat.nc \
-type data -input_field 'name="CZ"; level="(0,0,*,*)";' \
-mask_field 'name="CZ"; level="(0,0,*,*)";' \
-thresh ==-9999 -value 0 -name CZ
(4) Run plot_data_plane to display the reformatted CZ field.
met-5.2/bin/plot_data_plane cz_reformat.nc cz_reformat.ps 'name="CZ";
level="(*,*)";'
(5) Convert to PNG and attach the result.
convert -rotate 90 -background white -flatten cz_reformat.ps
cz_reformat.png
I played around with the raw_thresh in the MODE configuration file but
couldn't get it to do what I wanted.
Hopefully this helps get you going.
Thanks,
John
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <Caution-url:
> Caution-https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I tried running gen_vx_mask (V5.2) by using the NetCDF observation
> file as "input", the same file was used for "mask" so I would
generate
> the output file on the same domain as the original domain. I'm
getting
> a "range check error".
> See attached log file and the observation file. Is there something
I'm
> doing wrong? Not sure how to debug this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> R/
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT [Caution-mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:41 AM
> To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> <john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions
about
> MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
verify
> the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all
links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the
address
> to a Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Hi John,
>
> I see that you have a question about the categorical counts and
> statistics included in the output of MODE. You're wondering why the
> false alarm counts
> (FY_ON) are set to 0. And looking closely at the TOTAL column in
the
> cts.txt file, you'll see that the number of matched pairs is 222.
> However, looking in the NetCDF file you sent, I see that the grid
> dimension is
> 204 x 204... so the total number of grid points *should* be 41,616!
>
> The answer lies in the PostScript plot you sent. While all 41,616
> forecast grid points contain valid data, only 222 of the observation
> grid points contain valid data values. All that gray area in the
> observation field is missing data. MODE only computes categorical
> statistics at grid points which contain valid data in both fields.
>
> I assume that you'd like the observation field missing data values
to
> actually be set to a value of 0 instead.
>
> You could do this in one of two ways...
>
> (1) Run the observation field through the gen_vx_mask tool in MET as
a
> way of preprocessing the data and changing those bad data values to
0.
> This would be necessary if you want to also run this data through
> Grid-Stat.
>
> (2) In the MODE config file in the "obs" section, set:
> raw_thresh = !=NA;
>
> MODE will read in the observation field and any grid point not
meeting
> the threshold criteria will be reset to a value of 0.
>
> Please give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Jul 11 12:40:17 2017: Request 81164 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <Caution-Caution-url:
> > Caution-Caution-
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81
> > 164 >
> >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> > I have a question about the calculation of contingency table
scores
> > such as CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For
reference
> > I've attached that file plus the postscript file and the other two
> > output files from a run I did using forecast and observed radar
> > reflectivity.
> >
> > In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with
> > observation outlines, I see the red forecast object which was
> > matched with the blue outlined observation object. I see in this
> > plot areas where there are "hits"
> > (FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined
area.
> > I see "misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not
overlap
> > a
> red
> > area.
> > Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their respective
> > columns in the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas
where
> > the red areas do not overlay a blue outlined area which
corresponds
> > to "false alarms"
> > (FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false alarm
> > events with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in
the
> > cts.txt file
> > at:
> > Caution-Caution-
http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tut
> > orial/
> > METv5.2/tutorial.p
> > hp?name=mode&category=output
> >
> > The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas
and
> > 0 for non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue
> > outlined areas. If a simple contingency table of outcomes is
> > generated form this, why are there no false alarm events?
> >
> > Another question regarding the first page of the postscript output
> > file. In the table on the right side of the page, total interest
> > values for pairs of simple objects are listed in sorted order. My
> > understanding from the User's Guide was that those pairs of simple
> > objects whose interest value fell below the interest threshold
were
> > not "matched", but if I look in the plot, I can see simple objects
> > with red numbers (part of the merged forecast and observed
objects)
> > which also show in the table on the right with interest values
less
> > than the threshold which are "matched". An example of this is
object
> > 6
> > (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that same color
objects
> > in both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship
between
> > the interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered simple
> > objects which are colored royal blue which should indicate
> > "unmatched" also appear in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't
> > quite understand the presence of "pairs" in the table versus the
> > simple numbered objects appearing in the plots.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > R/
> > John
> >
> > Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
> > U.S. Army Research Laboratory
> > White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
> > (575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
> > FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
> > Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> >
> >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
------------------------------------------------
Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Jul 13 16:52:06 2017
John,
I really don' think that using NA in defining a threshold is going to
work
in met-5.2. I tried running the NetCDF file you sent through MODE by
setting the "raw_thresh" option, but couldn't get the desired result.
And
I can't get the desired result with met-5.2 or met-6.0.
If using the MET tools, I think pre-procssing with gen_vx_mask is
probably
the best choice. Alternatively, you could probably use one of the nco
tools (such as ncks) to change all the bad data values to 0.
That's probably a pretty simple thing to do... maybe just a one-
liner...
unfortunately though I don't know what it would be!
John
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> John -
>
> I noticed a small difference in the raw_thresh setting syntax in
your email
> below. I propose the following test:
>
> I'll try using
>
> raw_thresh = ==NA;
>
> instead of
>
> raw_thresh = !=NA;
>
> Thanks for debugging the issue I was having with gen_vx_mask. I'll
test
> your
> method below and let you know.
>
> R/
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:26 PM
> To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions
about
> MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
verify the
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
contained
> within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
> browser.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> John,
>
> Sorry I meant to write back yesterday afternoon. I forgot that you
were
> using
> met-5.2. I'm not sure if the "==NA" syntax works in 5.2 or not.
> Thanks for sending the sample data.
>
> Here are step which demonstrate how gen_vx_mask could be used to
change
> values
> of bad data (-9999) to 0:
>
> (1) Run plot_data_plane to display the CZ field.
> met-5.2/bin/plot_data_plane ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc cz.ps
'name="CZ";
> level="(0,0,*,*)";'
>
> (2) Convert to PNG and attach the result.
> convert -rotate 90 -background white -flatten cz.ps cz.png
>
> (3) Run gen_vx_mask to change those bad data values to 0:
> met-5.2/bin/gen_vx_mask \
> ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc \
> ncf_20140925_102151.new.nc \
> cz_reformat.nc \
> -type data -input_field 'name="CZ"; level="(0,0,*,*)";' \
> -mask_field 'name="CZ"; level="(0,0,*,*)";' \
> -thresh ==-9999 -value 0 -name CZ
>
> (4) Run plot_data_plane to display the reformatted CZ field.
> met-5.2/bin/plot_data_plane cz_reformat.nc cz_reformat.ps
'name="CZ";
> level="(*,*)";'
>
> (5) Convert to PNG and attach the result.
> convert -rotate 90 -background white -flatten cz_reformat.ps
> cz_reformat.png
>
> I played around with the raw_thresh in the MODE configuration file
but
> couldn't get it to do what I wanted.
>
> Hopefully this helps get you going.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <Caution-url:
> > Caution-https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81164 >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> > I tried running gen_vx_mask (V5.2) by using the NetCDF observation
> > file as "input", the same file was used for "mask" so I would
generate
> > the output file on the same domain as the original domain. I'm
getting
> > a "range check error".
> > See attached log file and the observation file. Is there something
I'm
> > doing wrong? Not sure how to debug this.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > R/
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT [Caution-mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:41 AM
> > To: Raby, John W CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
> > <john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil>
> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #81164] questions
about
> > MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> >
> > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please
verify
> > the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all
links
> > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the
address
> > to a Web browser.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > I see that you have a question about the categorical counts and
> > statistics included in the output of MODE. You're wondering why
the
> > false alarm counts
> > (FY_ON) are set to 0. And looking closely at the TOTAL column in
the
> > cts.txt file, you'll see that the number of matched pairs is 222.
> > However, looking in the NetCDF file you sent, I see that the grid
> > dimension is
> > 204 x 204... so the total number of grid points *should* be
41,616!
> >
> > The answer lies in the PostScript plot you sent. While all 41,616
> > forecast grid points contain valid data, only 222 of the
observation
> > grid points contain valid data values. All that gray area in the
> > observation field is missing data. MODE only computes categorical
> > statistics at grid points which contain valid data in both fields.
> >
> > I assume that you'd like the observation field missing data values
to
> > actually be set to a value of 0 instead.
> >
> > You could do this in one of two ways...
> >
> > (1) Run the observation field through the gen_vx_mask tool in MET
as a
> > way of preprocessing the data and changing those bad data values
to 0.
> > This would be necessary if you want to also run this data through
> > Grid-Stat.
> >
> > (2) In the MODE config file in the "obs" section, set:
> > raw_thresh = !=NA;
> >
> > MODE will read in the observation field and any grid point not
meeting
> > the threshold criteria will be reset to a value of 0.
> >
> > Please give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tue Jul 11 12:40:17 2017: Request 81164 was acted upon.
> > > Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > > Queue: met_help
> > > Subject: questions about MODE output (UNCLASSIFIED)
> > > Owner: Nobody
> > > Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > > Status: new
> > > Ticket <Caution-Caution-url:
> > > Caution-Caution-
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=81
> > > 164 >
> > >
> > >
> > > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> > >
> > > I have a question about the calculation of contingency table
scores
> > > such as CSI which are output in the cts.txt text file. For
reference
> > > I've attached that file plus the postscript file and the other
two
> > > output files from a run I did using forecast and observed radar
> > > reflectivity.
> > >
> > > In the postscript file plots showing the forecast objects with
> > > observation outlines, I see the red forecast object which was
> > > matched with the blue outlined observation object. I see in this
> > > plot areas where there are "hits"
> > > (FY_OY) where you can see red area overlaying the blue outlined
area.
> > > I see "misses" (FN_OY) where the blue outlined area does not
overlap
> > > a
> > red
> > > area.
> > > Both the hits and misses have non-zero counts in their
respective
> > > columns in the cts.txt text file. I also see in the plot areas
where
> > > the red areas do not overlay a blue outlined area which
corresponds
> > > to "false alarms"
> > > (FY_ON), but the cts.txt file shows that there are no false
alarm
> > > events with a 0 entry. The MET tutorial describes the output in
the
> > > cts.txt file
> > > at:
> > > Caution-Caution-
http://www.dtcenter.org/met/users/support/online_tut
> > > orial/
> > > METv5.2/tutorial.p
> > > hp?name=mode&category=output
> > >
> > > The tutorial explains that the objects show 1 for the red areas
and
> > > 0 for non-red and 1 for blue outlined areas and 0 for non-blue
> > > outlined areas. If a simple contingency table of outcomes is
> > > generated form this, why are there no false alarm events?
> > >
> > > Another question regarding the first page of the postscript
output
> > > file. In the table on the right side of the page, total interest
> > > values for pairs of simple objects are listed in sorted order.
My
> > > understanding from the User's Guide was that those pairs of
simple
> > > objects whose interest value fell below the interest threshold
were
> > > not "matched", but if I look in the plot, I can see simple
objects
> > > with red numbers (part of the merged forecast and observed
objects)
> > > which also show in the table on the right with interest values
less
> > > than the threshold which are "matched". An example of this is
object
> > > 6
> > > (fcst) and object 5 (obs). I thought I read that same color
objects
> > > in both fields have been "matched". What is the relationship
between
> > > the interst threshold and matching. Also note that numbered
simple
> > > objects which are colored royal blue which should indicate
> > > "unmatched" also appear in the table of "pairs". I guess I don't
> > > quite understand the presence of "pairs" in the table versus the
> > > simple numbered objects appearing in the plots.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > R/
> > > John
> > >
> > > Mr John W. Raby, Meteorologist
> > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory
> > > White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
> > > (575) 678-2004 DSN 258-2004
> > > FAX (575) 678-1230 DSN 258-1230
> > > Email: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list