[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #80328] History for question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Tue May 2 14:59:42 MDT 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
I anticipate using WRF forecasts which have been post-processed using the
UPP in GRIB format and radar observations in CF-compliant NetCDF format. Is
there a problem, using the two inputs with the differing formats?
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: question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue May 02 09:55:18 2017
John,
No problem, that should work fine. The only detail is that the
conventions
for specifying data from GRIB files and NetCDF file in the MET
configuration files differ slightly. So you won't be able to use "obs
=
fcst". Instead, you'd list the forecast fields to verify in the
"fcst"
dictionary and the verifying observation fields in the "obs"
dictionary.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue May 02 09:38:59 2017: Request 80328 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: question about MET V5.2 MODE (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=80328 >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I anticipate using WRF forecasts which have been post-processed
using the
> UPP in GRIB format and radar observations in CF-compliant NetCDF
format. Is
> there a problem, using the two inputs with the differing formats?
>
> 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: question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Raby, John W USA CIV
Time: Tue May 02 11:08:23 2017
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
John -
Thanks for the confirmation on that. I felt like it was not likely to
be a
problem. I'll remember to use the correct settings in the config file
to
distinguish between the fcst and obs formats as you suggested.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:55 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 #80328] question about
MET V5.2
MODE (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,
No problem, that should work fine. The only detail is that the
conventions
for specifying data from GRIB files and NetCDF file in the MET
configuration
files differ slightly. So you won't be able to use "obs = fcst".
Instead,
you'd list the forecast fields to verify in the "fcst"
dictionary and the verifying observation fields in the "obs"
dictionary.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue May 02 09:38:59 2017: Request 80328 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: question about MET V5.2 MODE (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=80328 >
>
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> I anticipate using WRF forecasts which have been post-processed
using
> the UPP in GRIB format and radar observations in CF-compliant NetCDF
> format. Is there a problem, using the two inputs with the differing
formats?
>
> 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: question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue May 02 11:50:22 2017
John,
The gridded data you pass to MET must be on a regular grid... lat/lon,
polar sterographic, mercator, or lambert conformal. Those are the
projection types that the MET code knows how to interpret.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:08 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=80328 >
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> John -
>
> Thanks for the confirmation on that. I felt like it was not likely
to be a
> problem. I'll remember to use the correct settings in the config
file to
> distinguish between the fcst and obs formats as you suggested.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:55 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 #80328] question
about MET
> V5.2
> MODE (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,
>
> No problem, that should work fine. The only detail is that the
conventions
> for specifying data from GRIB files and NetCDF file in the MET
> configuration
> files differ slightly. So you won't be able to use "obs = fcst".
Instead,
> you'd list the forecast fields to verify in the "fcst"
> dictionary and the verifying observation fields in the "obs"
dictionary.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue May 02 09:38:59 2017: Request 80328 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: question about MET V5.2 MODE (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=80328 >
> >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> > I anticipate using WRF forecasts which have been post-processed
using
> > the UPP in GRIB format and radar observations in CF-compliant
NetCDF
> > format. Is there a problem, using the two inputs with the
differing
> formats?
> >
> > 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: question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Raby, John W USA CIV
Time: Tue May 02 12:07:15 2017
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
John -
Thanks. I've never worked with radar data so, this issue was raised
and I
needed to get a reading on that.
R/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:50 AM
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 #80328] question
about MET
V5.2 MODE (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,
The gridded data you pass to MET must be on a regular grid... lat/lon,
polar
sterographic, mercator, or lambert conformal. Those are the
projection types
that the MET code knows how to interpret.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:08 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=80328 >
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> John -
>
> Thanks for the confirmation on that. I felt like it was not likely
to
> be a problem. I'll remember to use the correct settings in the
config
> file to distinguish between the fcst and obs formats as you
suggested.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT [Caution-mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:55 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 #80328] question
about
> MET
> V5.2
> MODE (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,
>
> No problem, that should work fine. The only detail is that the
> conventions for specifying data from GRIB files and NetCDF file in
the
> MET configuration files differ slightly. So you won't be able to
use
> "obs = fcst". Instead, you'd list the forecast fields to verify in
> the "fcst"
> dictionary and the verifying observation fields in the "obs"
dictionary.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue May 02 09:38:59 2017: Request 80328 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: question about MET V5.2 MODE (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=80
> > 328 >
> >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> > I anticipate using WRF forecasts which have been post-processed
> > using the UPP in GRIB format and radar observations in CF-
compliant
> > NetCDF format. Is there a problem, using the two inputs with the
> > differing
> formats?
> >
> > 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: question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue May 02 13:51:03 2017
John,
Hopefully you can get a hold of some radar data that's already been
post-processed onto a standard projection.
I'll go ahead and resolve this ticket.
Just let us know if more issues arise.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:07 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=80328 >
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> John -
>
> Thanks. I've never worked with radar data so, this issue was raised
and I
> needed to get a reading on that.
> R/
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:50 AM
> 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 #80328] question
about
> MET
> V5.2 MODE (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,
>
> The gridded data you pass to MET must be on a regular grid...
lat/lon,
> polar
> sterographic, mercator, or lambert conformal. Those are the
projection
> types
> that the MET code knows how to interpret.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:08 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=80328 >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> > John -
> >
> > Thanks for the confirmation on that. I felt like it was not likely
to
> > be a problem. I'll remember to use the correct settings in the
config
> > file to distinguish between the fcst and obs formats as you
suggested.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT [Caution-mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:55 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 #80328] question
about
> > MET
> > V5.2
> > MODE (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,
> >
> > No problem, that should work fine. The only detail is that the
> > conventions for specifying data from GRIB files and NetCDF file in
the
> > MET configuration files differ slightly. So you won't be able to
use
> > "obs = fcst". Instead, you'd list the forecast fields to verify
in
> > the "fcst"
> > dictionary and the verifying observation fields in the "obs"
dictionary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tue May 02 09:38:59 2017: Request 80328 was acted upon.
> > > Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > > Queue: met_help
> > > Subject: question about MET V5.2 MODE (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=80
> > > 328 >
> > >
> > >
> > > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> > >
> > > I anticipate using WRF forecasts which have been post-processed
> > > using the UPP in GRIB format and radar observations in CF-
compliant
> > > NetCDF format. Is there a problem, using the two inputs with the
> > > differing
> > formats?
> > >
> > > 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: question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Raby, John W USA CIV
Time: Tue May 02 14:26:14 2017
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
Thanks, John.
We have an application (from NCAR I think) called RADX which has
promise of
being able to convert to a standard projection as well as convert from
UF to
CF-compliant NetCDF. We're getting ready to test this.
R/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT [mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 1:51 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 #80328] question
about MET
V5.2 MODE (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,
Hopefully you can get a hold of some radar data that's already been
post-processed onto a standard projection.
I'll go ahead and resolve this ticket.
Just let us know if more issues arise.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:07 PM, 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=80328 >
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> John -
>
> Thanks. I've never worked with radar data so, this issue was raised
> and I needed to get a reading on that.
> R/
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT [Caution-mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:50 AM
> 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 #80328] question
> about MET
> V5.2 MODE (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,
>
> The gridded data you pass to MET must be on a regular grid...
lat/lon,
> polar sterographic, mercator, or lambert conformal. Those are the
> projection types that the MET code knows how to interpret.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <Caution-Caution-url:
> > Caution-Caution-
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=80
> > 328 >
> >
> > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> >
> > John -
> >
> > Thanks for the confirmation on that. I felt like it was not likely
> > to be a problem. I'll remember to use the correct settings in the
> > config file to distinguish between the fcst and obs formats as you
> > suggested.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT
> > [Caution-Caution-mailto:met_help at ucar.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:55 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 #80328] question
> > about MET
> > V5.2
> > MODE (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,
> >
> > No problem, that should work fine. The only detail is that the
> > conventions for specifying data from GRIB files and NetCDF file in
> > the MET configuration files differ slightly. So you won't be able
> > to use "obs = fcst". Instead, you'd list the forecast fields to
> > verify in the "fcst"
> > dictionary and the verifying observation fields in the "obs"
dictionary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Raby, John W USA CIV via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tue May 02 09:38:59 2017: Request 80328 was acted upon.
> > > Transaction: Ticket created by john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > > Queue: met_help
> > > Subject: question about MET V5.2 MODE (UNCLASSIFIED)
> > > Owner: Nobody
> > > Requestors: john.w.raby2.civ at mail.mil
> > > Status: new
> > > Ticket <Caution-Caution-Caution-url:
> > > Caution-Caution-Caution-
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.
> > > html?id=80
> > > 328 >
> > >
> > >
> > > CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
> > >
> > > I anticipate using WRF forecasts which have been post-processed
> > > using the UPP in GRIB format and radar observations in
> > > CF-compliant NetCDF format. Is there a problem, using the two
> > > inputs with the differing
> > formats?
> > >
> > > 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
>
>
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list